Letters for January 24, 2013
Homeless stereotypes, continued
Re “Proof of homeless kidnappers?” by Christine Craft (SN&R Letters, January 17):
The “Megan” of Megan's Law, the federal legislation that established the public tracking of sex offenders, was a 7-year-old girl who was abducted, raped and killed. The child molester in this case wasn't homeless, but there is nothing that prevents fearsome men from joining the homeless population, far from it. There are certainly some worrisome individuals mixed in with the mostly excellent homeless folk in Sacramento, who might do some very dastardly deeds.
An element in this whole conversation has become ridiculous. Homeless people, including myself, are roughly speaking the lowest 1 percent economically and socially. No one should be fanciful in thinking those who subsist outside could double as attendees at a garden party in the Fabulous 40s. But neither is it the hotbed of thugs and craven child molesters that Marcos Breton imagines. … Breton's columns—which started this whole long letters-to-the-editor conversation thing—were outrageous, not because it is totally impossible that some outlier homeless guy might rape a child, but because his charge was meant to forge an absurd stereotype that homeless people are morally bereft, extremely dangerous and vile, and [that] the metropolis shouldn't fund or support aid going to the homeless, thus getting the rabble to self-deport.
Homeless Sacramentans are each unique, with the members of the community generally being thoughtful, timid, lost and in need of hope and meaning in their lives. … Breton's column also showed that he knows nothing about pedophilia. Earlier letters were right: It's not “the stranger” that is likely to commit an act of child sexual abuse, but a relative, neighbor, teacher or coach. Child molesters know the kid they target and manipulate him or her to get what they want. That's how it works. The Bee should get Breton Internet access so he can easily incorporate some facts into the crap he writes.
We’re not all Jenny McCarthy’s sheep
Re “Children at risk” by Jeff vonKaenel (SN&R Greenlight, January 17):
I am a loyal SN&R reader and respect your magazine for its honest journalism. However, I was appalled by your piece on vaccinations. I wonder: Did you ever think why a school with some of the most educated parents would have a rate of 70 percent nonvaccination? It is not just because they blindly followed Jenny McCarthy’s advice or do not know the risks associated with communicable diseases. … We also know the long list of poisons in vaccinations, and as a holistic-health practitioner, I also know many of my nurse clients are among those that are most opposed to vaccinations. …
Also, the federal government just paid out millions of dollars to families of vaccine-injured children, so to say that there is no science supporting the risks of vaccinations is very incompetent journalism. I understand you have seen people with polio; so has my friend who is a doctor and will tell you that polio is a lot easier to live with and causes way fewer problems than autism. Have you also not seen the rise in the rates of diseases such as autism and many other autoimmune diseases that have skyrocketed at epic, inexplicable proportions?
Many of the parents who have a personal-belief exemption are the most educated about the risks and benefits of vaccinations, and they are the most proactive parents when it comes to keeping their kids healthy through good nutrition, strong immune systems and homeopathic medicine. They are not just “relying on the herd” to protect them.