I am writing to you in regard to "Puritanical porn position" by Edwin Decker ["Sordid Tales] in the June 25 edition.
Finally! Someone who agrees that all this Internet censorship is a bunch of bullshit. Who the hell has the right to tell me what I can or cannot view at a public place that my tax money went to pay for? Why, in a society that is supposed to be one of the most advanced and diverse, are we the most repressed?
Since the beginning of the Internet there have been porn sites, and there will be porn sites as long as there is an Internet. After the Internet is gone, there will be new ways to get porn. It is all around us. What is next to be determined as porn and banned? The billboard ad for Abercrombie and Finch that shows two people in just underwear? Will the Supreme Court have to make a decision on that?
I truly believe that the more society tries to hide our "filthy little secret," the more children are going to be simulated to find out what all the hype is about. The more society gives the impression that sex is bad and children are made to feel guilty about it and their bodies, the more problems I feel these children will have in their older lives with relationships.
These days, anything can be made into something bad and dirty. People can become addicted to even the simplest of things. There are also things that are far worse in our society, sad to say, than running across a porn site on a library computer.
Kids are naturally inquisitive-let them be. Parents need to be more open about sex, sexuality, porn and all those things that make them uncomfortable. It is only then, when children have a healthy understanding of these things, will the supposed "need" to filter porn sites on public library computers no longer be an issue.
And as a side note, great choice of advertisement to go along with this column [F Street adult videos and gifts]. How long will it be before this kind of advertisement is deemed unfit and censored by some Supreme Court ruling? If the trend continues like it is today, it won't be too much longer.
The story on the border ["Cover Story," July 2], for me, was wonderful and timely. I will cite it in a book chapter I am writing on migration and health for a new nursing graduate textbook to be named A History of Nursing Ideas. My area of interest is migration and health, including border health, and this is an invited chapter. Shane Liddick's article is an apropos "lay source" that also cites some scholarly studies to buttress his representation of the border.
assistant professor, Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, University of San Diego
As a member of the service industry described as largely consisting of "people who have worked in the business for far too long, who drink and snort a bit too much" [Letters, July 9], I just have to say-yikes-where do you hang out?
While I am sure there are some bartenders and wait staff as awful as you say, for that to be the preponderance of your experience doesn't speak well for you or where you like to go. The service industry personnel I know and work with are all professional, responsible, hardworking people who do a good job under sometimes incredibly difficult circumstances.
(bartender, Qualcomm Stadium),
I just wanted to quickly respond to what Edwin Decker wrote about in the article "Party Pooper" ["Sordid Tales," July 2].
What Mr. Decker fails to bring up in his article is that the "social host ordinance" is not geared only towards "the poor 21-year-old college kid." The passing of the social host ordinance also comes from the fact that some parents believe that having their kids drink at home is better than them drinking outside of the home. However, studies show that those who drink at a younger age tend to continue drinking throughout their lives, as opposed to those who start drinking later on in life. Those who start drinking at an earlier age also tend to develop problems stemming from their alcohol use.
I did not fully agree with the idea behind this ordinance until I attended a meeting in National City. The people there came from all backgrounds and areas and were not just "the powers that be"; they were school officials and people in the community-from hospitals to the neighborhoods.
What the social host ordinance does is hold people accountable for having underage intoxicated people on their property with the knowledge that this is happening. Yes, having the police just bust up a party may seem like enough, but does it really solve or prevent a problem? No.
This ordinance was brought up and passed by people who care about youth in their communities.
The bottom line is if you do not want to get in trouble, then don't let your underage child or friend get intoxicated on your property. I did not think that not wanting a young person to get wasted was a bad thing.
Re: your July 2 cover story, "The Border." Good article. It would be interesting to see how immigration advocates feel about Border Patrol agents who themselves are Mexican Americans, some of who are actually born in Mexico and further south.