Dear Editor:

Its obvious that Nicole does not like Stephen Whitburn. He bad mouth him every chance he gets. And he ignores the truth and tells all kinds of lies about the Whitburn campaign.

Now that the San Diego County Democratic Committee has decided to endorse Mr. Whitburn for city councilman for theThird District, what is Nicole’s excuses. Its obvious that Todd Gloria is not who the Democrats and Independents want to represent them in the Third District.

As for John Hartley, he has run for public office so many times that he should just give up. The people in the Third District are tired of his rhetoric and want some fresh faces and new ideas.

People are tired of Nicole and coterie of friends who keep him alive by paying for all of his meals etc. Grow up San Diego.

Chuck Cotton

Dear Editor,

I would like to personally thank Todd Gloria for responding to my letter in last week’s GLT. Todd is exactly correct that 100% of his contributions come from individual contributors. Campaign laws do not allow for businesses, corporation or groups to contribute to our City Council Candidates. However, the Center of Policy Initiatives analyzes the individual contributions so that voters can understand the make-up of these groups of individuals. They classify these contributions into 15 different groups (Business Services, Candidate, Education, Finance & Insurance, Government, Healthcare, High-tech & Biotech, Labor, Lawyers & Lobbyist, Media, Non-Profit, Tourism, Misc Business, Misc Individuals, and Real Estate & Development). If you don’t fit into one of these groups, your contributions are accounted in Misc. Individual. The fact remains that Todd gets 11% of his contributions from Misc. Individuals and Stephen get 28%. Since Todd’s letter, I have provided my complete analysis to both Todd and Stephen’s offices.

Todd also mentioned that I failed to include the educators, doctors and nurses, small business owners, hi-tech and bio-tech workers, and non-profit leaders in my analysis. Well, I only shared that information that I thought the community would be most interested. The fact is that both Todd and Stephen are getting the same rate of money from each of these groups with exception to non-profit leaders. Todd is getting 6% and Stephen 3% from non-profit leaders. I don’t care that non-profit leaders are giving more to Todd than Stephen.

My purpose of my the letter was to get a response to why real estate and developer individuals are contributing a disproportionally higher rate of money into Todd’s campaign than any of this other candidates. With all due respect, development is a good thing, but many developers come into our community and do not care about the context of their project with the rest of the community. Todd did not respond to the point that real estate and developers seem to like him more. What is it about his campaign that resonates with real estate and developer individuals?

John Taylor

Dear Editor:

Letters published by you and Todd Gloria’s own comments in a news piece by you ignore the obvious. Stephen Whitburn is much more qualified than Todd Gloria to represent District 3 on the city council.

But 74% of the San Diego Democratic party recognized Stephen as someone who can change the way business is done at City Hall. Todd has already sold his soul to the Police and Firefighter’s unions and to so many city lobbyists that I can’t list them here.

Voters should be informed and vote their conscience: that is all I ask.

Ian Trowbridge

Dear Editor:

When Susan A. Robins wrote to the G<’s readership and advised transgendered people to “stay away from the GLBT embedded TG community, the community is toxic and feeds upon itself,” this was one heck of an observation from a paleo-transgender historian.

Reading Robins’ entire letter, no matter how outraged some folks might be, she has a terrific insight.

I’ll bet many of this publication’s readers have digital cable and watch the LOGO channel for its virtually all-gay and lesbian content. I thought one of the programs would be quite diverting – “Transamerican Love Story.” Produced correctly, this program would put a clever spin on network TV’s “bachelor” and “bachelorette” reality shows.

Tragically, it was an embarrassing, repulsive and repugnant experience. The “bachelorette” is ill-suited to her role. Her suitors – supposedly straight, with a female-to-male character thrown into the mix – appear to suffer from all sorts of low self-esteem issues as they compete for the attentions of creature who looks like and has all the mannerisms of a very bad drag queen or hooker with the sun cast upon her at high noon in a desert.

Bachelorette Calpernia Addams is no lady. This is one very unattractive broad who appears as uneasy in her post-op life and the viewers watching her must be. Even her name, to go with her new life, suggests she couldn’t free herself from homosexual influences. She looks and acts as befuddled as the G<’s house-ad character “Chlamydia Burns.” Even San Diego’s former cigarette girl Tootie – in the days of her “fur” bustier – looked more feminine than Calpernia.

My point – to all the fast and furious letter-writing about who belongs and doesn’t belong among the community’s alphabet soup of acronyms – is that Robins’ intelligent and thoughtful explanation deserves respectful consideration. Those who vehemently disagree with Robins, and continue to be outraged over the exclusion of transgendered people from the gay and lesbian mainstream, might consider reexamining where their feelings of anger stem from.

After all, it seems perfectly logical, as Robins wrote, “Most of the transgender and transsexual men and women are not a part of the ‘Rainbow Community,’ they can make it on their own in the straight mainstream world.”

Lee A. Schoenbart