No Broad Support for Obama

A truism: your paper is essentially funded by prostitution ads. Ironic, since as part of the alternative media, you are ostensibly pro-woman. Further, if your main audience/target customer is the 20s-to-30s white single guy with extra time on his hands, do these ads really benefit him? Or woman? Singledom in general? Even these sex workers, in the long-run? I guess somewhere along the line there was an ethical compromise made: we need these ads to fund and disperse our alternative media POV: the ends justify the means.

 Odd then, that your paper comes down so hard on Hillary Clinton for making the exact same kind of ethical compromise with her (yes, mistaken) early Iraq vote. But at least she can argue that she based her vote on faux, cherry-picked info (and lack of real military intel briefings) and the expressed feelings of her constituents. Can you?

 Thus, owning such disingenuousness, I should not be surprised at your endorsement of Barack Obama, based more on clichéd and unfair insults to Hillary than honest reasons why Obama would be a better president. For example, is it fair to list among her negatives, that the (heavily Republican-controlled) Congress at that time made her health-care initiative "fail"? Or that there were "missing files" (was there genuine basis to anything Ken Starr did?). Halfway through your "endorsement," we get unconvincing (and undeserved) compliments to Obama: that his voice of "power and clarity and ideas and conviction have resonated with a broad range of Americans." Really? Then why do Union members, blue-collar Dems, rural Dems, elderly Dems, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, New Yorkers and Californians all support Hillary? Can your support be "broad" without any of these groups? Then you conclude with the cliché [that] Hillary's candidacy causes a "bitter and partisan" logjam and (red/blue state) stalemate (that Obama's would not). Would this Repub/Dem "peace" treaty that you suggest be at the cost of indifference to the feelings of the above groups? And if so, why is this "change" something worth supporting?

  Chen Kai Wen

San Mateo

Adding Units

Thank you for your fine article on ending homelessness in Santa Clara County ("Everybody Off the Streets," MetroNews, Jan. 23). Our ministry enthusiastically supports the work of Supervisor Gage, Mayor Reed and the Blue Ribbon Commission. The homeless themselves have advocated a "housing first" approach to homelessness for decades, since long before it was discovered by the academics and the bureaucrats. It is a great policy.

However, without an adequate supply of housing affordable to the poor, it will not work. The main culprit is not local. Since 1978, the Federal HUD housing budget has been cut by 65 percent—a total of $54 billion in constant dollars. After supporting these cuts, the Bush administration's $25 million for "solutions to house the homeless" is a cruel joke. The 500 new units a year projected by the county are a worthy effort, but will ultimately barely keep us even and prevent homelessness from increasing.

Mass homelessness as we know it did not even exist in America from the end of the Great Depression through the late 1970s. It is not an act of God, not an eternal condition, and not a mystery. It is a calculated, evil, bipartisan government policy that has been in place now for thirty years, and it is time for people to rise up and stop it.

What is really needed is a national Civic Works Project such as the one currently proposed for the Gulf Coast. Unemployed Americans could be hired immediately to build the 5 million extremely low-income housing units necessary to end homelessness and high rents for the poor. Let's unite with the enthusiasm developing around the 2008 election, but not limit ourselves to electing a new president (as necessary and refreshing as that would be). Any candidate who wants our vote must pledge to adopt a comprehensive program to end homelessness and poverty in America once and for all. It is time to make justice for our own poor and working people a higher priority than foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Sandy Perry

Outreach Minister, CHAM Deliverance Ministry

San Jose

Stealth Tracker

Re Lacrosse training article ("Lacrosse Roads," Sports, Jan. 9): Enjoyed the brief article. Would enjoy more coverage and maybe a little in-depth about some of the players. I feel the sport can become a staple in the valley, now with the S.F. Dragons Lacrosse playing at SJSU Stadium.

Only way that can happen is by the media buying into sport and players so the fine people of the Bay Area know we are out there. We are on our way with since the Comcast/FSN bay area agreement for televising all home games.

Thanks again from a loyal reader.

Pablo Sanchez

San Jose

Send letters to the editor here.