Dear Editor:

I am writing in reaction to a headline in your February 24, 2005 issue. It read: “Pro-family Group Rallies in San Diego Against Same-Sex Marriage Rights.” Does this mean that our community is anti-family? On the contrary, we are just as pro-family as our opponents and we should not concede to them this point. But by describing them as such, this is what you have done.

And no one is asking for same-sex marriage rights. Marriage equality is the issue, not same-sex marriage, so that ALL families are equally protected under the law. Yet your publication, like every other publication in America, talks about same-sex marriage. This is not the issue. Quite simply, the emphasis should be on equality, not same-sex.

It would have been better if the headline had read: “Conservative Group Rallies in San Diego Against Marriage Equality.” By using our opponents’ language to describe us, you are misrepresenting the issues that are vitally important for our community to understand. Worse, you are projecting onto us our opponents’ negative portrayal of our intentions. Message matters and you are the messenger. If you don’t get it right, how can we expect the members of our community to understand the importance of this issue? Therefore, I urge you to look at the lexicon you are using when writing about this most vital issue.

Barry Simon

Dear Editor:

I really enjoyed the article “Living with Lipodystrophy” by John McElhose (in the Feb 17, 2005 issue). It is especially poignant to me because someone I dated and really care about was recently diagnosed with HIV.

I’ve been numb since the diagnosis, and one of the many questions I have regarded facial wasting.

I did, however, want to point to one error in the article (on page 42). I am a biochemistry major at UCLA and I am very familiar with cell biology.

The author has made some erroneous statements regarding mitochondria. The gist of what he was trying to say was correct, but the specifics were wrong. Mitochondria are NOT located in the nucleus of a cell—they are organelles residing the cytoplasm of the cell (basically the part of the cell that does not include the nucleus). Mitochondria are the “power houses of the cell”, but they DO NOT break down ATP. Mitochondria function to break down a molecule called acetyl-CoA, which comes from nutrients we ingest—mainly carbohydrates and fats. As acetyl-CoA is broken down, electrons are freed and used by the mitochondria to drive a “motor” that actually produces ATP for the cell to use. Mitochondria have nothing to do with breaking down ATP. ATP can be considered an “energy currency”—reactions that require energy, such as building protein for muscles, use ATP as their energy source. It is in these biosynthetic reactions (which typically do not occur in the mitochondria) that ATP is broken down.

I don’t know how important it is to clarify these specifics, but perhaps the author wasn’t listening in his high school biology class. I will be quite honest—neither did I!!

I hope this helps, and I did really enjoy the article otherwise.

Ryan Murphy

Dear Editor:

Recent newspaper articles have noted 2008 Democratic hopefuls talking more about their “faith” in an effort to recoup this year’s election losses. It immediately makes me wonder - why is it that when morals and values are the subject, politicians feel safest playing the “religion card”? Why do words and actions seem to only count when carried out under an umbrella of professed faith?

The Democratic platform is a very moral platform. Many Democrats belong to various faiths, but it is the moral implications of their platform which is what unites them. The particular religion or moral secularism of any given Democrat is a means to the shared end, an outlook on life which stresses human rights, accountability, helping those in need, nondiscrimination, working with the other peoples of the world, and a respect for individual differences. Democrats can win by explaining and emphasizing how the programs and laws that stem from their philosophies are based on morality.

Politicians may or may not be truly religious, but as religious affiliation is not synonymous with morality, we should judge candidates by the values we see exemplified in their past and proposed future policies, not by any claims of religiosity. If they genuinely feel a need to make public their personal spirituality, that’s fine, but don’t stop there - they should continue by talking directly about the vast moral underpinnings of their platform. As the last election left the public thinking that Democrats don’t have values because they didn’t play the religion card, I’m hoping they won’t wait until the next election to get this message out.

If morals are truly the point in the current political milieu, why not cut to the chase and simply talk directly about them?

Carol Scherbaum

Dear Editor:

Ours is a democratic society that subscribes to government of the people, for the people and by the people. We get the “for the people” part of this creed but fail to participate in fulfilling the “of and by the people duties” that are required of us to achieve what we expect.

We all want something, handouts, tax breaks, benefits, services, civil rights, freedom, etc. etc., but too many of us depend less on our own efforts than on the efforts of others. The truth is, regardless of our political leanings, our needs will only be met when we stop depending on the government and start directing it in true “of, by and for the people” fashion are forefathers entrusted us with.

You ask, HOW? What are you talking about? Well, it really isn’t that difficult. Get active in your government. The needs and risks are too great and human nature too selfish to rely on elected officials to identify every problem and provide the answers and solutions solely under their own steam without assistance or funds from the rest of us. Back room deals and partisan quick sand benefit the few and leave many lacking and disillusioned. Below is a web site that I offer to each of you to get involved in whatever way you can with those issues which concern you most. Even if you can pick just one issue, use your life experiences and the knowledge of your reality to express to your government the problems you see in “the systems” that impede or protect your lives and communities. Suggest solutions. Whether it be the war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, social security, civil rights, taxes, medical care, education, whatever your concerns, put some effort into communicating with elected officials instead of expecting them to identify the problems and deliver magic solutions. The luxury of always blaming the government is one we can not afford.

This nation got to be where it is, not because of government but in spite of it. The strengths and prosperity we enjoy were achieved by and though its citizens, their dedication, hard work, sacrifices and despite government interference and patrician bumbling. We are a diverse and largely intelligent populace. Generally, individuals know better than government what they need, want and how best to achieve it. Opinions vary widely, but somewhere between the extremes lie realistic, compassionate and financially responsible answers that when brought to the table serve us well. Be a part of setting that table!

Please, join the work force of the self governed in performing the “of and by the people” duties required of us to protect the democracy we too often take for granted. If you agree with my message, pass it on to all you know. Together, we can start a true grass roots movement to more quickly identify and resolve the issues and challenges of today and those that lie ahead of us.

Communicate with in your government. Tell them what you need them to hear. [Visit this letter online at www.gaylesbiantimes.com to access the website provided by Bill Kelly]

Bill Kelly