Use of caged beds to treat children
Re: “Lax screening cited in caged-kids case,” Sept. 15 news story.
In 2004, Hungary and the Czech Republic banned the use of caged beds after they were found in use in psychiatric wards in those countries. Human rights groups, the European parliament, and even J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, all demanded an end to this degrading and inhumane practice.
But caged beds are still in use in the United States. A psychiatrist advised Ohio parents to make their adopted children sleep in stacked, 3-foot-high wooden cages.
My mother took foster children all my life, including infants, teens and the disabled. What these children (and all children) need is love, attention and compassion. They do not need psychiatric help of any sort, and certainly do not need to be caged like animals. This is an outrage, and must be stopped.
Kim Isaacson, Broomfield
Why aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina?
Letter-writer Bradley J. Schwartze wants someone to tell him why he should donate to hurricane relief (Sept. 14 Open Forum). Well, Mr. Schwartze, I can’t tell you why you should, I can only tell you why I did.
Sure, I’m angry that Michael Brown (former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency) was in a position of leadership for which he was incompetent, and I blame both the Bush administration’s culture of cronyism and Congress, who unanimously approved his appointment. And yes, I’m worried that global warming has and will lead to stronger hurricanes and more devastation to come. But I opened my checkbook because I saw that many, many thousands of people – my countrymen – were suffering in ways that were beyond my imagining, and I simply had to do something. So I gave what I could afford, although many others have given so much more, including generous amounts of their time.
Kathleen Corbett, Denver
…
Bradley J. Schwartze wants to know why he should give to the hurricane victims. He takes the criticism of others personally and uses these criticisms as a rationalization for not helping those in need. He should give to those in need because he’s a human being, and other human beings are suffering. That’s all he needs to know.
Michelle Maani, Nipomo, Calif.
…
Bradley J. Schwartze’s first paragraph answers his own question. He sees people suffering and obviously in need, yet sees no reason to give. The various excuses he uses to keep his dime in his pocket are his justification. People give because they have compassion and the means to help. “Just tell me why I should give?” he asks. He shouldn’t.
Greg Ferri, Fort Collins
Tips for bicyclists and others on the road
Re: “Tips for drivers sharing the road with bikers,” Sept. 14 Open Forum.
I can say after reading her letter that Cathy Egleston should indeed feel very lucky to be alive. I may not be a “competitive” cyclist, but I have logged thousands of miles on a bike in Boulder, Denver and Steamboat Springs. Egleston said she was “riding in a bike lane with the right-of-way” when she was hit by a car making a right turn. Any “experienced” cyclist would expect the car to not see them traveling in the bike lane in the same direction and would, out of sheer self-preservation, give the right-of-way to the car.
As a driver, I make an effort to look out for bikes and motorcycles. When riding, I never assume a driver sees me. Last weekend, while walking in the Cherry Creek area, I had the gall to stride into a four-way stop intersection, and a biker had to swerve radically to avoid hitting me. Regardless the mode of transport, one should always assume the other guy doesn’t see them. Any less diligence is suicide.
James Hoople, Denver
Bush’s speech to U.N.
President Bush now tells the United Nations that war alone will not defeat terrorism. Whey, then, did he rush to war against Iraq, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and destroying a beautiful country, based on falsehoods? Was he not advised by the entire world community not to rush to war before exhausting all peaceful methods? The most unfortunate thing is, he has still not realized that he has only magnified terrorism by waging this immoral war.
Raju T. Mamileti, Denver
Judges, umps and John Roberts’ confirmation
Re: “Roberts sees role as limited; ‘Judges are like umpires,’ not players, says chief justice pick,” Sept. 13 news story.
As a retired lawyer, I have often heard the comparison of judges and umpires. It is an analogy that we really should rethink. First of all, it applies more to trial judges than appellate judges. Appellate judges serve a different function in the judicial system. The trial judge settles the facts in light of the law and the appellate judge determines what the law is that should be applied in that particular case before the court. Our system is one that was predicated on the English common law. That is an evolving and ever-changing system and we look to the wisdom of a judge to craft the common law in such a way as to have justice served. It is a process, nothing more and nothing less.
However, it is not an ideological game, as the umpire analogy suggests. Our legal system is predicated on loftier ideals such as truth and justice. The person in the system who represents those lofty ideals is the trial judge or appellate justices.
Oddly enough, every judge who is appointed is a proverbial “pig in a poke.” Lawyers are, to use another analogy, hired guns. When a lawyer becomes a judge it presents an opportunity for him or her to be themselves. Even the candidate will not know that result, so how can we predict how that will turn out? Being a judge is a totally different experience than being a lawyer. In other societies, judges are specifically trained to be judges. Here it falls to on-the-job training.
Therefore, I say to Roberts: Good luck, you are about to undergo a life-changing experience where even you cannot predict the result.
John H. Clough, Littleton
…
Re: “A little sense among screams,” Sept. 15 Andrew Cohen column.
While partisan politicians and party diehards use some of John Roberts’ writings from years ago as an example of why his nomination should not go forward, Andrew Cohen applauds Roberts for his answers to those critics. In part, Cohen quotes Roberts as saying that “certainly there are many areas where it appears that I knew more at 25 than I think I know now, at 50.”
I have often said that anyone who, if given a chance to live their life over again, says they would not change a thing is either a fool or a liar. In these hearings, Roberts has certainly shown that he is neither of these. Indeed, we should not always subject nominees to severe criticism for all they say or do from cradle to confirmation any more than we should always severely criticize politicians for all their comments, opinions or actions from years ago. Continued unjust review and criticism for every thought or action will result in many qualified candidates simply never considering public service.
As an independent, watching the Roberts confirmation hearings has been very interesting to me, to say the least. I believe he is handling himself extremely well, and that’s more than I can say for some of the politicians at the table. While Roberts shows outstanding command of the issues, the negative partisan politics of Sen. Edward Kennedy and others is more than obvious. No reasonable person would actually ask a nominee how they would vote on specific issues that he might actually face while on the bench, let alone expect him to answer such a question – yet that is exactly what they continue to do.
Roberts shows the intelligence, demeanor and sincerity sorely lacking in so many of our elected politicians in both parties. I only wish we would see a presidential candidate with the same fine qualities he has shown in these hearings. Maybe then, in future elections, we would see more people voting – and voting for a candidate rather than against a candidate.
Jim Malec, Littleton
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
