Article was inspirational

I recently read the article “Parents, experts offer tips to curtail cyber bullying” and was inspired by what was written. Parents need to realize that even their 5-year-old children can pick up dangerous computer habits that will only grow as they mature. Even with parental control, it is now just one click away for young kids to find inappropriate material on the Internet. Children also should hear about safe computer use at a young age so that they too can understand what is right and wrong on the web. Monitoring the amount of time the child is on the computer creates safe habits as well.

When I was growing up, my mom would set a timer for how long my sister and I could spend using the Internet. Now we both have grown up with healthier computer habits than we would have if my mother had given us more freedom. Parent monitoring is key because it can reduce or get rid of the cyber bullying that might be occurring while the child is on the web.

In the article, it was mentioned that Harrison D-2 has an entire bully-free week. This concept was inspirational, and I sincerely hope that other school districts pick up on this trend. It is very important for kids to have at least one week per school year to focus on treating one another kindly. Thank you for your article. Colorado Springs needs to improve their cyber bullying protection systems.

Brooke Wallinger

Colorado Springs

Distorts the meaning of citizenship

Ed Jones, in his discourse on the “gay rights” movement (Feb. 27) has presented a candid and very welcome discourse on “gay rights” versus the black civil rights movement which deserves serious consideration by those of us who fail to acknowledge the artificiality of the entire “gay” political agenda. Yet, in the very vocabulary that he uses, Jones participates in the same fictional exercise on the subject that we all do.

The word “gay” is but one of several euphemisms that are used for the word “homosexual,” a noun which refers to an individual solely on the basis of his or her sexual practices. By the very use of the word “homosexual,” we have created a civic identity, a legal identity and even a constitutional identity on the basis of personal sex habits. Why are we doing that? The “rights” that we all enjoy as American citizens stem solely from that citizenship. No other individual identity, characteristic or persuasion creates a right, entitlement or rationale for equality under the law. To identify an individual as a “homosexual” selects out individual citizens for special consideration, which distorts the meaning of citizenship and stands the notion of “equality under the law” on its head.

If we were to eliminate the word “homosexual” as a noun from the English language it would assist us all in focusing on the proper definitions and ramifications of citizenship. It would also enable us to address such issues as civil unions, the institution of marriage and how the U.S. Armed Forces should deal with the sexual behavior of its members as elective policy choices and not constitutional “rights.”

Whitney Galbraith

Colorado Springs

Waiting for promise to be kept

There continues to be a tremendous amount of discussion about granting amnesty to people who have entered our country illegally. Sunday’s Gazette (Feb. 24) contained a very factual column by writer Charles Krauthammer on the subject. The article makes many good points, the most important being that any amnesty should contain “enforcement first” provisions. This is especially necessary when one considers the main theme of the 1986 amnesty — known as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” — was employer sanctions as “the cornerstone” of that act. We are still waiting for that enforcement promise to be kept.

I am concerned that most of the amnesty proposals only grant amnesty with no action to prevent the problem from recurring. A lot of concern has been expressed about border security, and rightly so. But interior enforcement is just as important. Almost 50 percent of illegal immigrants presently in the U.S. entered on legal visas and refused to leave when their visas expired. We need a working entry-exit tracking system instead of ignoring the visa overstay problem. Mandatory e-Verify would also discourage more illegal immigration.

Do we really know how many illegal immigrants are presently in the U.S.? The 1986 amnesty expected only 1.5 million applications but received 3 million. The official estimate today is 11 million. Could the 1986 amnesty be an indication of the number of applications we can expect under any new amnesty? Would 22 million illegal immigrants actually apply rather than 11 million?

Our immigration laws have been eroded to the point where they are almost meaningless. I am totally against any kind of amnesty which would only serve as a reward to illegal immigrants and encourage more illegal immigration, as happened in 1986.

Ralph Kelly

Colorado Springs

Just when are they working?

I finally realized why nothing can get done in Washington.  Last week our elected officials took the week off to celebrate Presidents Day; sequestration won’t be addressed any longer this week because they left Thursday for the weekend; and they take weeks and months off at a time for any holiday or for no reason at all.  Just how often are they actually working?

Sharon Ferguson

Woodland Park