Biodiesel Convention; More on June Special Election; Corporate Sponsorships; Barry Bonds …

by on February 6, 2009

To the Editor:

Great article, E. Doc Smith, about the National Biodiesel Convention. You so eloquently put into words the tone and needs of what we are experiencing, and are needing to fight for to make biodiesel part of our renewable & sustainable energy future.

Kimber Holmes


To the Editor:

Wow — I just spent the past month cutting my budget. I have less revenue, I wish I could tax my neighbors, friends and family, but hell, I can’t! So, I cut my cell phone bill, my CATV, my driving, my insurance, everywhere that I could cut and make a sacrifice, I did!

Why can’t San Francisco, why can’t California and why can’t the US? I already pay $10k a year in property taxes to the city, 9% sales tax, what next?? If we voted for the City Supervisors to lead, why aren’t they? Can’t they spend time looking over the city budget and figure out where they can reduce spending — oh yeah that’s right, they are AFRAID to do so because in 4 years the voters may not like them anymore …

We need a revolution in this city, the state and the country for actual sound responsible leadership. Your support of taxes only doesn’t help either!

Anonymous


To the Editor:

Re: “A Big Mac, But No Cojones” by Tommi Avicolli-Mecca. It is disturbing to defend a good cause, that of the rights of gays, by invoking horrible names such as Pepsi, McDonald’s, Heinz, Ikea, etc. All corporate, all heatless. They see in gays only a marketing space to be exploited and fed their poisonous food. I feel l am between a rock and a hard place, the above Corporate names and the American Family Association (AFA). Yes we should stand to the AFA attacks on gays, but in the same time not see the Corporate danger as heroes.

Naffis Griffis
San Francisco


To the Editor:

Recently, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco released over 200 pages of previously sealed documents in the Barry Bonds case. The documents indicate that Bonds tested positive for three types of steroids in 2000-2003. I hope the Giants organization and the City of San Francisco are now suitably embarrassed for giving the key to the City to and holding a celebration for Bonds back in August 2007. They knew, or should have known, back then that Bonds had been a steroid user.

Remember, it was widely reported in the media on December 3, 2004 that Bonds testified before a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who was indicted in a steroid distribution ring. And remember the article, “The Truth About Barry Bonds and Steroids’ by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, in the March 7, 2006 issue of Sports Illustrated (excerpted from their book “Game of Shadows.”)

Bonds claims he did not know he was taking steroids. Bonds may be accused of many things, but certainly not stupidity. If you still believe that Bonds did not know he was taking steroids, then you are in serious denial. Some have argued that because Bonds has not admitted to using steroids knowingly, there is a Constitutional presumption of innocence. While this might be true in a court of law, it is not necessarily true in the court of public opinion, where Bonds’ lack of credibility and the substantial circumstantial evidence have persuaded me and others that Bonds knowingly took steroids.

But does it matter? In this age of wide-scale cheating and lying by public officials, researchers, school officials, students, etc., Bonds’ use of steroids appears irrelevant to a lot of people. After all, baseball is just entertainment and “everyone” was doing it. Yes, it does matter because steroid use is up among high school students and even eighth-graders. Celebrating a cheater like Bonds sends the wrong message to our young people.

Ralph E. Stone
San Francisco


You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:

Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)

Filed under: Archive