Roberta M. Helming: Racist rant is pointless expression of ignorance
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 25, 2010 @ 11:00 PM
I’m bothered by an online story and video of a woman in Hingham, Mass., who went into a tirade, hurling racial epithets at, and committing an assault on, a black postman.
One word in particular she used was disturbing, and her degrading remarks concerning his character were based not solely on him, but an entire race. It was hurtful.
Equally frustrating is this woman’s only possible crime is the minor physical assault. By itself, the verbal racial abuse against this man — and blacks in general — unfortunately is not a crime.
It makes you wonder why there is this kind of hate based solely on race. Regardless of race, we are still humans. We love our children and mourn the loss of loved ones. We laugh, cry, hurt, etc. Where is the difference?
Hatred of races is sadly present in all walks of life. Anyone is capable of racist behavior. It knows no socioeconomic boundaries and excludes no race.
Racist remarks may stem from hatred, hurt, low self-esteem, undereducation or overeducation. All kinds of minds that are somehow broken, thoughtless.
Everyone occasionally becomes annoyed at other people, leading to name-calling, but it doesn’t have to be that way. As a society, we need to learn how to speak to one another without focusing on someone’s race, personality traits or physical features. We all have different personalities, likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. It’s our upbringing that shapes us into who we become.
People from any socioeconomic class may or may not have a kind heart. They may or may not engage in destructive behavior. The one thing about all of us is that it’s not the race that makes the person; it’s the person who makes the race, including embracing their culture and enhancing it.
Too many people know little about their own culture. So how is it then possible to know that one’s culture is superior to that of another?
It’s easy to see people making uninformed decisions, leading to prejudicial remarks and behavior. A lack of knowledge breeds hate and discrimination.
We need each other, and we have proven time and time again that we are willing to help each other. The Sept. 11 attacks proved that race didn’t matter when it came time to help each other. Why is it that we need such disasters to confirm what we already know?
What is solved by an enraged woman using racial slurs against a postman and his race in general? Nothing. The video taken from the postman’s cell phone shows he was guilty of nothing except attempting to politely do his job.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
I feel it is important to do what we can to make a difference in this world. This is my contribution.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Our Veterans
A big thank you to our veterans for serving this country so that we may have a better life, free to do the things we so much enjoy.
I love the freedom to express myself as a writer. I love the freedom to read the writings of others.
War is a tough issue, but it is the way this country has chosen to protect our way of life and our country.
If you know a veteran, call him or her and say thank you for the sacrifice made for this country and its citizens.
I love the freedom to express myself as a writer. I love the freedom to read the writings of others.
War is a tough issue, but it is the way this country has chosen to protect our way of life and our country.
If you know a veteran, call him or her and say thank you for the sacrifice made for this country and its citizens.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes?
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes?
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)