Dear Editor:

Will the editorial staff of the GLT PLEASE take an introductory course in logic? Pay special attention to the lecture on Informal Fallacies.

You commit them often!

Your latest editorial, “Hartline deserves a voice,” commits the logical fallacy of accident, wherein a general rule is misapplied to a specific situation. You made the argument that because “everyone” should be able to participate in democracy (general rule), James Hartline should not be excluded from candidate forums (specific situation). You ignore the fact that felons, and Hartline is a repeat felon who has spent nearly half his life in prison, can be stripped of their right to vote in consequence of the crimes they have committed. If some felons can be deprived of their right to vote, it is not unreasonable to exclude felons from participation in the electoral process generally. Excluding Hartline from candidate forums on the basis of his criminal record is reasonable.

Your editorial also commits a red herring fallacy by citing the injustice of silencing LGBT leaders. LGBT leaders, in general, are not criminals, so silencing them is not equivalent to refusing Hartline a seat at a candidate’s forum.

Your editorial further commits the appeal to the people fallacy when it attempts to invoke feelings of outrage for past discrimination against LGBT people.

Hartline has a voice. He has newsletters that reach thousands and he gets plenty of air time in local news with his protests and direct action activities. He is able to participate in the democratic process, regardless of his reasonable exclusion from candidate forums.

It wasn’t that long ago that Hartline attacked members of our community on the basis of their criminal past. The GLT sided strongly with him in that case. I will remind “saint” James of the words of Jesus to Peter in Gethsemane: those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.

Rev. Keith W Ramsey

Dear Editor:

I must disagree with the GLT editorial concerning candidate forums. It is the responsibility of each organization holding a candidate forum to select the criteria for candidate participation. For example in many cases forums sponsored by organizations of political parties only allow candidates from their party. This is because it is the responsibility of political organizations to promote only their party’s candidates. They should not be providing a forum where others can be promoted.

The biggest problem with questioning a long list of candidates is the lack of time to examine the viable candidates. That is why some of the television forums do not invite Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and others. Why waste valuable time on candidates who have little support? It is interesting to note that James Hartline, who professes to be a Christian leader, has been rejected from a forum in a church. Is there any doubt that he has very little support?

Whether we agree or not sponsoring organizations have the right to select who then want to question and promote at candidate forums. As for your example a church sponsored forum would have every right to exclude LGBT candidates if they chose to do so.

Charlie Sharples

Dear Editor:

I sure do not understand the logic in the editorial saying that James Hartline deserves a voice. No one has a right to be included in a political forum. Not only do clubs or political parties holding forums have the right to invite only the candidates they wish to question but they also an obligation to not give a microphone and a podium to a hatemonger. Hartline blames everything from the Mt. Soledad mudslides to the San Diego wild fires on gays. He says there is an evil conspiracy afoot in Hillcrest — an organized effort among homosexuals to lure individuals into the gay lifestyle, drugs, prostitution and pornography, and to intentionally spread the AIDS virus. When he spreads his hate message it encourages others to attack gays. Hartline is not an exgay; he is gay. He is not an exfelon; he is a felon. Hartline is a good speaker who has developed a following. Putting him on stage with a microphone is irresponsible.

Three good speakers that the world now wishes were never invited to the podium are David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones of the People’s Temple , and Adolph Hitler of Germany.

Limit Hartline’s message of hate to his website. It is bad enough with Michael Aguirre and Nicole Murray-Ramirez praising him.

Dee Keng

Dear Editor:

This election for the District 3 Council Member should be about the issues and their characters. Who will serve the District best? Who has sold themselves to developers? Who really believes in open government? Who believes in change to make San Diego government an honest Institution that represents the people?

Come join us Nicole and make a difference because Steven Whitborn will make a difference by asking us to help him make a difference.

But one thing, you insult Jane Filner and all women when you suggest she can only get a job because of her husband. She is a great fund raiser as you will see at the end of this month.

Ian Trowbridge

Dear Editor:

Regardless of the fact that his wife works for Stephen Whitburn, I respect Congressman Filner’s right to endorse who he wants. With that said, I strongly believe that his attack of Todd Gloria is uncalled for and unfounded. Anyone who knows Mr. Gloria or simply looks at his record can see that he has spent the majority of his life improving the lives of the people in District 3 and San Diego as a whole. Mr. Gloria’s knowledge and experience as a public servant has prepared him to be a City Councilman, but it is his integrity and devotion to the community that will make him a truly outstanding representative for District 3!

Kelley Van Auken

Dear Editor:

Does Bob Filner really think the voters of District 3 are so stupid? First his wife (and former fundraiser) Jane gets a job with Steve Whitburn’s campaign, then, the Congresssman endorses Whitburn for city council.

While I respect Bob’s position here, can he really so be so brave to claim that both his wife’s and his own relationship with the Whitburn campaign is purely coincidental? That is absurd. If my family was making a dollar for every ten my partner’s simple endorsement raised, I would have been sure he made that statement months ago! Filner bashes the so-called “establishment” in your article, but clearly has no problem looking after his own South Bay political establishment.

J. Norwich