Going Postal September 16 2000
Time of crisis
I am writing in regards to the article “Time to Tell” published in CL’s Aug. 19 issue. As Executive Director at DeKalb Rape Crisis Center, I found it very exciting to see a local newspaper focusing on such an important topic for their cover story. It was empowering to read about a brave, young man who is using his experiences to heal himself and reach out to other teens.
It is through a continuous presence in the media that we will be able to reach as many community members as possible who may benefit from our services. We would be happy to work with you in the future to increase awareness of the issues that surround rape and sexual assault in our community.
-- Virginia N. Vaughan, Executive Director DeKalb Rape Crisis Center
font face=”arial, helvetica, sans-serif” size=”+1”>Crushed by Berry’s inanity
I too am repulsed by the so-called “crush” videos. Videos that previous to your article, (“Barr Defends Crush Videos, CL, Sept. 9) I blissfully had no knowledge of. But I think your attack on 7th District Rep. Bob Barr was a bit off base. To suggest that Barr’s vote against federal legislation barring such trash “vigorously endorsed the practice of videotaping the torturing and killing of domestic animals for the purposes of sexual gratification” is nothing more than a far left stretch out of the bounds of reality.
We the people have this thing. This document. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. December 15, 1791, the first 10 Amendments were ratified. They are called the Bill of Rights. The first Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
I am confident that Bob Barr finds the very nature of “crush” videos offensive. His vote was not defending the “content” of such porn. It was defending our constitutional right to free speech. It was defending yet another attack on our Constitution. The same Constitution that guarantees your right to attack Mr. Barr in CL, without fear of reprisal. To further slam Mr. Barr due to the fact that he had three marriages and other unproven allegations against him is sophomoric journalism at best Mr. Berry.
-- Clay Fincher, Decatur
P.S. I like Ted Nugent too.
font face=”arial, helvetica, sans-serif” size=”+1”>Big Mack attack
No one will ever doubt that Mack Mattingly is a good man. But it’s obvious that even Luke Boggs (“Mack’s Mission,” CL, Sept. 9) has a difficult time saying what kind of senator he would be. This is astonishing considering that Mr. Mattingly actually was a senator from Georgia from 1981 to 1986.
Back in 1980 Mack Mattingly was one of the coattail boys that followed Ronald Reagan’s dust trail all the way to Washington. It wasn’t too tough considering that by that time the word Democrat was not uttered in polite company, and the man opposing Mattingly was so embarrassingly corrupt that even the yellow dogs crawled under the porch with their tails between their legs.
What occurred over the next six years may be one of the biggest political mysteries of the 20th century. For the life of me, I cannot remember one thing that the junior senator from Georgia accomplished during his term. Wyche Fowler made enough hay out of Mattingly’s lack of a voting record to successfully give him the boot in 1986. It was a good thing that we still had Sam Nunn during those years or Georgia might have been relegated to the political backwater like some wayward child or even worse, Rhode Island.
Luke Boggs asks, “Why Mack Mat-tingly?” It’s a good question. It appears that the only real answer is that he wants to take the place of fallen comrade Paul Coverdell. If so, that is a noble endeavor and my hat is off to him. But we already know that Mack Mattingly is a good man. Unfortunately that is all we really know about him.
-- James Williams, Atlanta