Get to work
About “Hypocrisy predicted” [“Presently Tense,” June 3]: Yes, social conservatives will likely reveal themselves to be hypocrites once again as they 1) challenge people's right to vote on same sex marriage and 2) complain that the question continues to be put before voters who have clearly spoken (Propositions 73, 85, and 4, anyone?).
However, the general tone of the piece smells of the lackadaisical nature that allowed Prop. 8 to pass. It is the same tone that people had when there were rumors that a same-sex-marriage ban would be put on the November '08 ballot after the court's ruling: “It won't qualify for the ballot.” People then said, “It won't pass,” when it did get on the ballot. I heard “The court is just going to overturn it” when groups like the ACLU announced plans to challenge Prop. 8 in court. So, “Voters are just going to overturn Prop. 8,” right?
Obama will not be on the ballot in 2010. What's going to get the millions of voters who don't care either way to come out and vote for the rights of others? Think about all those religious voters who are sure they'll go to Hell if they don't donate $5,000 (in the middle of a recession) to uphold marriage restrictions.
Wake up, people; it is actually going to take work to win this battle. Though this is obviously a civil-rights battle that will be won someday, we can't just sit around hoping that the right thing will happen.
Jessika Reliford, Normal Heights
Call it what it is
About Edwin Decker's May 27 “Sordid Tales” column calling for a new term for “climate change: It finally took somebody like CityBeat to slam this topic into the public's face. I tried to take this on last year, sending messages to Greenpeace, Al Gore and any other environmental organization website, but it didn't seem to get any traction. I suggested “global destruction.” It's like “convenience foods,” which really should be “chemical foods.”
Not to be partisan, but the political right has been really good at this over the last few years, labeling a bevy of policies using empathetic words like “freedom,” “patriot,” “protection” and “safety.”
I appreciate you putting Frank Luntz in his place. We need to drop him off on a sinking iceberg with the polar bears and see who survives the longest.
Mike Sakamoto, Normal Heights
Decker is no light snack
Edwin Decker's piece, “Global boiling,” in the May 27 edition of “Sordid Tales” was a delight. Adventurous, thought-provoking, refreshing, engaging, multiple-LOL-inducing, full of fight, not pulling punches and ultimately lovely and loving. A full meal, I might say. In fact, I will say it: That was a full meal! Thank you, Ed. And also for the new word: dysphemism.
And now that I think of it, I've been reading your column for years. I liked the piece you did on Dave Chappelle way back. It got me interested, and I checked out the first season, and then the second, and then Dave's standup, and then Block Party. I'm a total Chappelle fan, and I got at least five of my friends turned on to him. And I don't think it's too big of stretch to say Dave Chappelle's popularity was one of the countless factors that paved the way for Obama's presidency. Chappelle showed us his America in a very real way (read: not euphemistic nor dysphemistic), and I think a lot of times his audience's eyes were opened to the need for change, which was one of Obama's slogans.
I believe there are innumerable reasons to mention for Obama winning. And they include you and me and my friends. We're all making little changes, even with the words we speak, and the words we read, and the dreams we push for. Thank you for the consistent hope, Ed.
Arash Tony Salimi, North Park