Letters for June 8, 2006

Gore and the truth

Re “The SN&R interview: Al Gore’s inconvenient truth” by Ralph Brave, (SN&R Feature Story, June 1):

Your headline gives the wrong connotation. It should have been: “Al Gore’s truth is inconvenient.” The basic problem with political decisions by elected officials, most of whom have no understanding as to what is meant by “scientific method,” is the priority of faith, economics, social taboos and the like.

Why is it necessary for the politically influential to make the necessary proclamations to heed? The present political establishment has already squandered precious time in working toward the solution to global warming.

As long as we use internal-combustion engines and continue to force the public to be addicted to one-person-one-cars, we will never get out of the quagmire we have created since the 1950s. No fuel alternatives for fossil fuels, for one-person-one-cars with internal-combustion engines, are going to help a whit in the fight against global warming.

The only solution is a Manhattan Project to develop a frequent, efficient mass-transit system using every kind of mass-transit mode in each and every town in these United States, which should be a model for the rest of the world, especially China and India.

It is also imperative to talk to China and India to slow down the demand of fossil fuel and not to relax any of the requirements on these countries as to the need to solve global warming. Just because we in the United States have become a nation that lives on a contrived economy of plastic, that does not mean the rest of the world has to emulate this indulgence to the detriment of the planet Earth and destroy not just the human life, but the other forms of life that are the lifeline of all humans.

Brahama D. Sharma
via e-mail

Hysterically funny …

Re “It’s a family tradition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Essay, May 25):

This essay is the most hysterically funny and yet somehow, at the same time, the saddest commentary through which I’ve had the pleasure of being informed, disgusted, amazed and amused to the point of guffaw in quite a while.

Thank you. Really, thank you very, very much.

Brett A.
via e-mail

… completely ‘unritejus’ …

Re “It’s a family tradition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Essay, May 25):

Kel Munger culd not be more rong. It just cant be that ritejus good Christians have pervert children.

The Bible says “The parents ritejusness rubs off on thier children” (Ichabod 6:23). And, everywon knows that Newt Gingritch and Dick Chaney are ritejus men. Like all librals Kel Munger just dont think it through. If she jus thot it through shed figur out that probly them kids is just plants in wicked pervert organizashuns. This way they can get the secret stratejys of them communist groups thats undermining marriadj the backboan of our amercan way and get em back to thier luving parents and then to the FBI and our president so thier evil plans can be stopt.

Miss Munger then says only pinkos have strate kids and that aint rite at all. I aint no lefty and I got me two kids and there strate or Id kill em and they know that so they aint gonna be queer at all.

And I can proof it becus my boy he waches all them great old American black and wite movie mucisals with my mama and he knows all them good clene songs and sings em all the time and acts em out with costooms to make her happy. Like the Bible says he respecs his granparents (Lot 12:6) so hes a ritejus boy and aint no pervert and that artical is jus plain rong.

Only the unritejus have pervert kids becus of thier sins beeng visited upon them (Absalom 6:21).

Philip Rosoff-Horne

… or perhaps simply wrong?

Re “It’s a family tradition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Essay, May 25):

It’s good to see SN&R continuing its tradition of carefully researched, thoughtful pieces. I’m sure the anecdotal evidence that Ms. Munger provides for her claim that conservatism causes homosexuality was thoroughly vetted by your fact-checkers.

No? Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps rather than claiming conservatives raise homosexuals, it might be more accurate to suggest that conservatives are less likely to be bullied by the radical gay-rights movement into accepting homosexuality as “normal” and therefore acceptable. Indeed, conservatives might be too principled to fall prey to the trendy notion that a universally condemned moral failing is somehow “genetic.”

Lawrence Terry
via e-mail

Pick your transgression

Re “Romans’ hate trumps Matthew’s love” (SN&R Letters, May 25):

I guess I need my confusion to be cleared up, Mr. Gorba. I often ask myself, “If homosexuality is so obscene, why didn’t Jesus mention it?” If we as Christians are to follow the teaching of Christ, why do we condone some transgressions but accept others; can we pick and choose?

The point is that there are far worse transgressions that Jesus mentioned, yet we ignore those. Is it because we would not like to cast guilt on ourselves? Maybe we should exclude all adulterers from history books as well; then again, you’ll end up with a very thin book.

As a heterosexual Roman Catholic male and a father of two, I can’t understand the need to try to exclude a group of people simply because we do not accept their lifestyle. Let them live their lifestyle, and you live yours; if God has a problem with it, let him deal with them when the time comes. God gave us free will. Why can’t we do the same?

George Avila

Quit bashing the Bee and get a union!

Re “The media, the market & McClatchy” by Chrisanne Beckner, Cosmo Garvin and R.V. Scheide (SN&R Feature Story, May 18):

Enough already with bashing The Sacramento Bee newspaper. SN&R has had a grudge against the Bee for decades. This is nothing more than unprofessional, petulant jealousy.

SN&R hates the Bee because the Bee is a unionized paper that pays a living wage, offers an outstanding benefit package and is a relatively democratic workplace. The Bee recently won a Pulitzer Prize for brilliance in investigative journalism. Where is your Pulitzer Prize? Sounds like a great big heap of “sour grapes” motivates your contempt for the Bee.

SN&R is not unionized. A democratic workplace starts at home; clean up your own company. SN&R has no right criticizing salaries the Bee pays or its benefit package when your paper is not unionized. You run a white-collar, high-tech journalism “sweat shop.” SN&R hires idealistic young folks, exploits the hell out of them, working them to the bone for a salary that is peanuts. Yes, you have a benefit package—but your staff doesn’t earn enough to afford the health insurance offered.

Unfortunately, Sacramento is a “one newspaper town.” It would be swell if the Bee had some competition with another major daily newspaper. Although the Knight Ridder buyout was unfortunate, it was a reality of the current media marketplace. Somebody had to buy Knight Ridder. I’d rather it was the Bee, which is one of the sole independently owned American newspapers.

The only reason SN&R has a reader base is because it’s a free paper. At least the Bee doesn’t devote an inordinate amount of its pages to sleazy porno sex ads, prostitutes soliciting Johns, personals ads from scam-artist convicts in prison wanting to hook up with suckers, putrid “Spicy Personals” with advertisers looking to “hook up” ISO one-night stands for “hump and dump” promiscuity.

When I want “hard news,” serious political reporting, social commentary and solid articles on local issues or human-interest stories, I read the Bee. I only read SN&R for the “Ask Joey” column and calendar of events.

Colleen Marie-Blanchefleur Whalen

Let’s chaat about this again

Re “We need to Chaat” by Kate Washington (SN&R Dish, October 27, 2005):

As a frequent reader of your periodical, I have come to trust Ms. Washington’s reviews of various restaurants—particularly her reviews of various ethnic restaurants. Her Korean and Vietnamese reviews have been on-point at the establishments I have tried thus far. As a defector from the Bay Area, I often find myself pining for a Sacramento equivalent of my favorite Bay Area Thai, Vietnamese, Indian and Korean spots.

However, her review of Chaat Corner and its downsized capsule that is reprinted every week are severely misleading. While I understand that Chaat Corner is no Breads of India or Vik’s, I was expecting something approaching good Indian fare when I visited this establishment on Wednesday, but I did not even find a semblance of tasty dishes, despite Ms. Washington’s representation that they have the “best Indian food” that she has “had in Sacramento.”

By the time we were finished with our meal, we could have been over halfway to Berzerkeley. I would strongly advise your food-review department to re-evaluate the three-and-a-half-star rating bestowed upon this place.

Kerri Rollins
via e-mail