Santa Cruz Good Times

Friday
Feb 05th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

From the Editor

greg_archerS2sPlus Letters to Good Times
Something To Talk About
Take Two

Remember Prop 8? Yes, it’s been more than a year since California voters banned same-sex couples from marrying in the state, but this month, things have heated up politically once again as the issue of gay marriage went back into court. Earlier this week, all eyes turned toward two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco who are seeking to overturn Prop. 8. The issue before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is whether gays and lesbians are a “persecuted minority” and if they are entitled to the same sort of legal protection as, say, racial or religious minorities. The answer to that question could, in fact, require the judge to overturn Prop. 8. Meanwhile, Hollywood has chimed in. While the trials cannot be broadcast, Tinseltown has found a way to work around it. Now, there’s a reenactment on YouTube. Producers and actors are actually staging an impressive redux, which includes the actual trial transcripts of the proceedings. Alyssa Weisberg, who’s at the helm of casting TV’s Lost is overseeing most of this. Watch for some "A-list” actors to come on board. In the meantime, catch it all youtube.com/user/MarriageTrial.

When all is said and done, I think most would agree that loving somebody is a natural human act. Imagine a world where the marriage issue were reversed? No champagne toasts or marriages for millions of heterosexuals? Talk about buzzkill. Don’t we all strive to live in a world where basic human rights are honored? I don’t know about you, but I Do.

Greg Archer | Editor


Letters to Good Times Editor

Take Two
I am most disappointed with Lisa Jensen's “review” of Sherlock Holmes. I realize there's limited space in the film section and your staff really does cover quite a bit of road in those few pages. It's not that. It's the off-hand dismissal of the particular film that saddens me. I'm also saddened to see the Canon referred to in lower case, not to mention a seeming lack of intimacy with the work in general. It's true Mary Morstan hasn't much to do ... she's never had much to do. The wonderful thing about this film is that she's given so much more to do than usual.
I'd just like your reviewer to know what she's talking about before she relegates a film to the bottom draw and frankly, I really don't think she's as familiar with the Canon as she'd like her readers to believe. I base this only on what I read in her dashed off... consideration.
Jessie Lilley
Mondo Cult Magazine

Something To Talk About
Regarding your recent “Local Talk” question about whether the wealthy have an obligation to help the poor, I’m almost amazed that anyone living in the “Free-World” would ask such a question, although I suppose now-a-days the term “Free-World” doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not so young that I don’t remember a time when the very mention of a question like this one would quickly illicit a response loaded with expletives like commie, pink-o, and not necessarily in that order. 
Let’s talk taxes for a few minutes shall we?  Taxes—something we all pay, one of those necessary evils to keep the economic wheel of our country turning. If you doubt this then I suggest you look to the tens of billions in tax payer dollars given to the banking industry. The IRS shows that the richest 1 percent of Americans pays 39 percent of the country’s total income tax bill, and the top 10 percent of filers pay approximately 71 percent of the tab. Hold on a sec I’m not done yet. The bottom 50 percent of earners now make up 13 percent of the of the country’s total income yet pay less than 3 percent of the income taxes. This means this, people in the top 50 percent of pay in this country pay 97 percent of the country’s total income tax bill. I think it would be safe to say that the rich do at least one thing for the poor. I know, I know, some of you are probably saying, “Good!  They should pay the bill. They have all the money!” 
Requiring one person to help another person for no other reason than one of the two people has more money than the other is ludicrous if not borderline criminal. This concept is no different than a person with a median income owning a house, two cars, and a boat being told to give the poorer person some of their possessions because they can’t afford things of their own.
It seems to me that the guiding principal of freedom that our founding fathers rallied behind during the creation of our nation has been lost somewhere through the years. Forcing or obligating the rich to help the poor goes against the very notion of freedom.
More and more I keep hearing the Communists—sorry I mean the Progressives—of the world demanding that everyone deserves the same sized piece of the proverbial pie. Whether it be the rich helping the poor or everyone should have free healthcare. There is a certain sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when you accomplish a self imposed goal that you will never have if someone just hands it to you. However the Progressive movement going on in this country seems to dictate that the way I think is out dated, and that the foundations that our country was built on is an old way of thinking and that we need to evolve with an ever changing world. But my argument to this rhetoric is and will continue to be, that every time you strip away someone’s rights gifted to us by our constitution (even the rights of the awful rich people), you destroy the adage that used to be taught to us in school, that the United States of America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
By the way I only make about $40,000.
Jason Loring
Santa Cruz

Comments (2)Add Comment
Lisa Jensen's “review” of Sherlock Holmes
written by job1866, January 29, 2010
Did this woman even see the movie? I think not!
Same Sex Marriage Editorial
written by Jessie Lilley, January 28, 2010
"When all is said and done, I think most would agree that loving somebody is a natural human act. Imagine a world where the marriage issue were reversed? No champagne toasts or marriages for millions of heterosexuals? Talk about buzzkill. Don’t we all strive to live in a world where basic human rights are honored? I don’t know about you, but I Do."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As an aside, I'd note that I've become acquainted with many, many people as the years have passed. Some are straight and some are not. 90% of the heterosexual marriages I am familiar with have ended - including my own first marriage. I'm on my second.

None of the homosexual couples I know have split, indeed there are some that have been together for more than 50 years. Seriously. None.

Quite a track record if you think about it.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

On the Run

Is there hope for California’s salmon?

 

Chinese New Year of the Red Fire Monkey

Monday, Feb. 8, is Aquarius new moon (19 degrees) and Chinese New Year of the Red Fire Monkey (an imaginative, intelligent and vigilant creature). Monkey is bright, quick, lively, quite naughty, clever, inquiring, sensible, and reliable. Monkey loves to help others. Often they are teachers, writers and linguists. They are very talented, like renaissance people. Leonardo Da Vinci was born in the year of Monkey. Monkey contains metal (relation to gold) and water (wisdom, danger). 2016 will be a year of finances. For a return on one’s money, invest in monkey’s ideas. Metal is related to wind (change). Therefore events in 2016 will change very quickly. We must ponder with care before making financial, business and relationship changes. Fortune’s path may not be smooth in 2016. Finances and business as usual will be challenged. Although we develop practical goals, the outcomes are different than hoped for. We must be cautious with investments and business partnership. It is most important to cultivate a balanced and harmonious daily life, seeking ways to release tension, pressure and stress to improve health and calmness. Monkey is lively, flexible, quick-witted, and versatile. Their gentle, honest, enchanting yet resourceful nature results often in everlasting love. Monkeys are freedom loving. Without freedom, Monkey becomes dull, sad and very unhappy. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770 - 476 BC), the Chinese official title of Marquis (noble person) was pronounced ‘Hou,’ the same as the pronunciation of ‘monkey’ in Chinese. Monkey was thereby bestowed with auspicious (favorable, fortunate) meaning. Monkey years are: 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016.  

 

The New Tech Nexus

Community leaders in science and technology unite to form web-based networking program

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of January 29

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Wine and Chocolate

West Cliff Wines gets its game on, plus a brand new chocolate cafe on Center Street

 

How would you stop people from littering?

Teach them from the time that they’re small that it’s not an appropriate behavior. Juliet Jones, Santa Cruz, Claims Adjuster

 

Dancing Creek Winery

New Zinfandel Port is a ruby beauty

 

Venus Spirits

Changing law could mean new opportunity for local spirits