Letters To The Editor

Not to Have Sex? How Controversial
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am disappointed that teachers at a local high school would object to a speaker who is there to tell teenagers not to have sex because it has dangerous consequences. I thought the point was to try to reduce risky behavior in teens. This is not a political or social agenda; it is a commonsense message.

I would expect organizations such as NARAL and GLSEN to object to a person advising teenagers not to have sex, but the teachers' reaction is really unfortunate. Do these teachers advocate teen sex? Can they provide a list of benefits to having teen sex?

I took my teenage daughters to hear Pam Stenzel at another speaking engagement she had in Richmond this past weekend, and her message was this: If you have sex, there are consequences. Sex can result in pregnancy and/or contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). STDs can be devastating. There is no form of birth control that can protect you from every STD. Abstinence is the only option that will keep you 100 percent safe from STDs and pregnancy.

Advocating behavior that will keep teens 100 percent safe? How controversial.

Stephanie Wyman.
Chesterfield.

. . .

Although abstinence is usually associated with birth control, it is also very important in preventing the spread of STDs. While there are many different forms of birth control that provide varying levels of protection, most give little to no protection against STDs.

Benjamin Franklin wrote that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Why would we protest the presentation of information that could save our children from a possible lifetime of disease or an early death?

Bobby Gill.
Mechanicsville.

To better understand the dangers to American capitalism, it is instructive to remember Ayn Rand's great novel, Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957. Through her fictional characters, some of whom in the socialist ruling class she labeled as parasites, looters, and moochers, Rand portrayed an economy in which capitalists cease to generate jobs because bureaucratic leaders nearly destroy the means of production through higher taxation and a collectivist ideology. Seriously alarmed by an economy that is nearly comatose, the bureaucrats finally capitulate and prompt the heroic capitalist and industrialist, John Galt, to assume the mantle of leadership. Galt declares triumphantly: "With the sign of the dollar as our symbol -- the sign of free trade and free minds -- we will move to reclaim this country."

The relevance of Rand's story is that liberal Democrats have used the recent financial crisis and severe recession as reasons to launch costly and intrusive programs -- e.g., the stimulus package, a proposed jobs program, as well as health care and others -- that pose a threat to the private sector. But as her book indicates, a prosperous society can be best created by allowing entrepreneurs and innovators the unfettered freedom in which to generate jobs and wealth for all citizens.

Lee Rice.
Richmond.

We have given away everything we have and much more, and not surprisingly we find ourselves knee-deep in insufficiency. Keeping up with the Joneses was hard enough; but keeping up with the Rockefellers was what finally did us in.

What did we get for our money? Defective tires, tainted pet food, toys with lead paint, and other blessings of dubious distinction associated with low prices and half-hearted manufacturing.

The Chinese in turn received air-pollution and worthless dollars. Sounds like a fair swap.

Richard Hemby.
Richmond.