Sound Off for Sept. 21, 2008
Reader: A reader wrote to "Sound Off" last week explaining how she was troubled by the increasing displays of physical affection between same-sex couples in the media.
Every time she mentioned her concern she was specific in saying it was "same-sex couples" that were troubling. When you answered her, you referred to her as one who prefers "to not witness public displays of affection."
It is somewhat subtle but also rather obvious you/your paper has once again chosen to "handle with kid gloves" issues regarding same-sex relationships. She never said she didn't want to "witness public displays of affection." She said she didn't want to witness "affection between two men or two women."
Would it have been hard for you to refer to her concern with the same terminology so as to be more accurate? It's too bad the liberal media as a whole refuses to tackle the cold hard facts out there regarding the destructive effects the gay lifestyle has on those involved.
The vote on Proposition 8 is going to be close. If it doesn't pass, don't be surprised if when you take the kid gloves off, there is some blood on your hands.
-- John Caprarelli
Jenner: Kid gloves? Blood on my hands?
I meant what I said. I don't want to see photos of gay couples kissing, but neither do I like to publish pictures of straight couples making out.
I learned a long time ago to never say never, but the only kissing pictures I like to print are of the mom kissing her kindergartner on the first day of school or the wife kissing her husband when he comes back from war.
Why do you think every decision or comment you don't like is part of a liberal media agenda?
•••
Reader: I'm writing in response to an opinion expressed in the Sept. 14 "Sound Off" column about television stations showing gay couples kissing.
My first response was how sad that with all of the dead/maimed bodies in Iraq, local gang shootings and neglected animals that the writer found a gay couple briefly kissing on TV the most concerning thing for her her young children to see.
Why is this involved parent allowing her three young children to be watching TV during the dinner hour at all, instead of "nourishing their bodies" and discussing the day with Mom and Dad with the TV OFF? When I was a kid, my family didn't watch TV while eating. We talked about school, chores and things going on in our lives.
People who sputter about gay unions remind me of people who would have written 30 years ago complaining it was "disgusting to see a black person and a white person kissing" and that it was against the "laws of nature and decency" — an example of how the majority is not always right.
You don't have to agree with gay marriage, or be comfortable seeing two same-sex people smooching, but how often have you seen two gay people necking in public? I don't believe it is acceptable public behavior for anyone.
Sensible people have to see through the veiled hate and ignorance, and the phony issue of "marriage sanctity." If it's so sacred, why are so many us either divorced or have divorced friends and family?
The main arguments against gay marriage are religious, and also by those who are fearful and narrow. Isn't it more indecent to take vows in a church before God and then break that covenant as easily as folks seem to do these days?
Now gay people wanting to be responsible and committed are the new evil that must be banned!
The bottom line about "gay marriage" is that all we are asking is for the right to say that: I, too, am a "viable human being" and my life has just as much value as anyone's. I bleed, I pray, I cry, I work, I pay taxes, and may have children, too. I'm someone's mother, sister, daughter, partner, friend, and aunt. I'm tired of living in fear and I just want to love someone who loves me while I live on this earth.
I'll guarantee there are many more "live and let live" people than there are frightened, ignorant people who share the writer's views. I know, because I've met many of them throughout my life and thank God for them all.
-- Colleen McGraw
•••
Reader: The headline read "Tehachapi prison fight breaks out." It should have been called a riot.
It seems like when things happen in prison, they're downplayed. It's not a riot, it's a fight. Webster's defines a riot as "a violent public disorder; specifically: a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent." The article goes on to report, "up to 200 people."
People, they are inmates. I was wondering if somehow up to 200 citizens of Kern County got into a fight at Tehachapi state prison. Then if once isn't enough it is reported, "the fight was between inmates from southern California and people from Mexico."
Now I'm really left to wonder if there were "people" visiting the prison from Mexico and maybe the inmates from southern California got into a riot with them?
Stop the downplaying! Call it what it is. A riot between 200 inmates took place. The riot participants were Hispanic inmates from southern California and Mexico, because I'm sure we can't call them illegal immigrants!
-- John Langham
Jenner: I agree. We should have called it an inmate riot.
•••
Reader: This is the first year any local high school has initiated the sport of water polo. Garces High School recruited both boys and girls to start learning the sport and formed teams that practiced many hours every day this summer. They must travel to all of their meets except for two.
We have gone and watched our grandson and his team. This is a grueling, physically challenging, yet very exciting sport that has captured very, very little coverage by our only local newspaper, or TV media.
Would anyone care to answer why? Many of these students would like to add their stats from this sport to their resumes when applying for college academic and sports scholarships.
-- Cynthia Williams
Jenner: I'm not sure if you missed it, but we did a big Sports cover full-color centerpiece spread when the season opened.
As for sending a staffer to every match, we don't even staff Cal State Bakersfield's water polo matches.
But like every other sport, if the coach or his designee phones in the results, we'll run them.
•••
Reader: What has happened to the great NFL Sunday sports page? Last Sunday's was terrible, it didn't have a couple of teams even posted, no lines — JUST TERRIBLE!!!!
Please go back to the old format! I'm sure that I'm not the only one who noticed this!
I had to get on the Internet to even find out what was going on with the teams.
Very disappointed customer!
-- Sharon Banks
Jenner: We inadvertently left out the New Orleans-Washington game last week. No excuses; we shouldn't have. Sorry.
As for the line — the Vegas odds — those can be found on the scoreboard page. We've tried to reduce redundancy in the section, and that was one of our areas.
We don't plan to return to the old format.
•••
Reader: I would just like to thank you and The Californianfor having columnist Lois Henry on board. She is one of the bright stars of the paper. And one of few times that we hear really objective reasoning in various issues involving the county. I applaud you for having her and I trust that you will keep her on.
I was particularly interested and gratified in her response to Nicole Parra's complaint of the article covering her.
-- C.J. Kirkemo
Jenner: Asking Lois to write a column was one of the brightest ideas we've had. We do intend to "keep her on."
