Feedback

He's innocent

Re: Edwin Decker's Aug. 22 "Sordid Tales" column, "Juicing Barry Bonds." Ed, how open minded do you think you are? Maybe you are already brainwashed and I'm wasting my time, but if you are still open minded, consider this: I don't think Bonds is innocent because others used, I think he is innocent because he did nothing more that what he told the grand jury: He used some salves and creams his trainer gave him.
I think this will come out in time. Greg Anderson will finally tell his tale. It will include how he slipped Bonds some creams for Barry to use for his arthritis. Barry and Greg were friends since childhood. Greg also worked part-time for this up-and-coming research facility (BALCO) that had access to state-of-the-art sports meds. Bonds paid Greg very well and followed Greg's workout routine to a T. The only thing Bonds wanted in return was Greg's assurances that he was to be given the best available training and meds but "nothing illegal."
Greg betrayed Bonds and Bonds' confidence in him. Yes, Greg slipped in some "stuff." When Bonds found out, he did not turn his back on Greg or turn him in. He was unofficially very pissed off but stuck by him nonetheless.
So now Greg sits in jail. He will not testify that he gave Bonds performance-enhancing drugs. He won't do so because Bonds stood by him, gave him a great job and didn't betray him when Barry found out what Greg had done.
Question: Why is Greg Anderson sitting in jail?
Answer: Because he feels guilty for betraying his longtime friend and will do nothing more than he already did to hurt him.
Bonds did not do needles and did not do the things Canseco, McGuire and many, many others in Major League Baseball have done. He did do what he told the grand jury. For that, I believe he is innocent and all this will eventually come out when Greg is ready to talk.
Ed, for you to print articles such as this one without proof positive is sad. You're not the only one. But not being the only one is no excuse, just as you state in your article.
Barry Bonds is simply that good. He is the best to come around in a long, long time and people don't like it--unless he plays on their team.

Joey Cordoza,
Chester, Calif.

Meat eating: unkind

In response to Jean-Pierre Gauthier's Aug. 22 letter to the editor, which was responding to D.A. Kolodenko's Aug. 1 "Presently Tense" column about society's attitude toward Michael Vick:
When I am asked why I am a vegetarian, I usually respond by asking, "Why do you eat meat?" Typical responses include "It tastes good; I enjoy it" and/or some variation of "God said I could; humans are the masters of the earth; animals were put here for our use." Very few people claim that they need to eat meat to survive. And, of course, there are numerous scientific studies that establish beyond question that humans do not need to consume the flesh of other living beings to survive--and, in fact, would be much healthier if they didn't.
I next ask the meat-eater, "Do you believe that we humans have an obligation to be kind to non-human animals if we are able to do so?" Virtually everyone responds in the affirmative: Animals should be kept (and killed) "humanely," and persons who treat animals cruelly should be discouraged from doing so. Of course, the meat-eater's response to this question is often dependent upon how close a connection she/he feels to the particular animal: Most people react much more negatively to the inhumane treatment of a puppy than to similar treatment of, say, a snake. But virtually everyone professes to believe humans have some basic obligation not to be unnecessarily cruel to non-human animals.
So, if we acknowledge that eating the flesh of other living beings is not necessary for our survival, and we further agree that we should be kind to other living creatures when possible, how do we justify taking the lives of other creatures simply for our own enjoyment? This analysis leads inexorably to the reason why I am (and why you should be) a vegetarian/ vegan: It is the kinder choice. And make no mistake about it: We do have a choice. Meat-eaters may try to shift the blame, but the bottom line is that meat eaters have simply made a conscious choice to treat other living beings unkindly with no necessity or justification other than their own personal enjoyment.
The letter from Jean-Pierre Gauthier is a perfect example of the kind of inane and illogical argument commonly made by flesh eaters to justify their actions: According to Mr. Gauthier, a vegetarian/vegan who uses deodorant and/or mascara is a "hypocrite" because these products may kill microscopic creatures that would otherwise be living happily in said vegetarian/vegan's armpits/eyelids.
Yeah, right. I've heard 'em all, and so have you if you've been a vegetarian/vegan for any length of time: How can you kill ants, termites and cockroaches? And what if a child is threatened by a snake; would you kill the snake or let the child be bitten? Although many a sensible person--vegetarian/vegan or not--would simply move the child away from the snake, that's beside the point; being a vegetarian/vegan does not mean giving up the right to defend oneself or others from an attack--whether the attacker is a human or non-human animal.
Rather than make relatively slight adjustments to their lifestyle that would have no negative impact on their health or well-being--and would relieve literally billions of sentient beings from lives filled with pain and terror--meat eaters like Mr. Gauthier prefer to justify their sins by pointing to the alleged "hypocrisy" of vegetarians/vegans. Nice try, folks, but it won't wash. So here's the bottom line, meat eaters: If you choose to continue to consume the charred flesh of other sentient beings, that's your choice. But don't try to tell me you're only doing it because you once saw a vegetarian/vegan swat a mosquito. It's time to own your unkindness.

Mike Jonak,
South Park

Don't go to the circus

Thanks for your article ["The Front Lines," Aug. 22] about our protesting animal cruelty at Ringling Bros. I'm the director of the San Diego chapter of Last Chance for Animals, and we were there, too. I was the one wearing the body screen TV, and several of the people who saw it turned around and left rather than buy tickets. They included a group of children, who told their parents they didn't want to go anymore, and some teenagers and adults. These people were understandably upset as they watched the undercover video of elephant beating/training, and news footage showing the risk to public safety when elephants go berserk in response to their treatment.
I think it's a little weird that you referred to my wearing the TV in "martyr fashion." I'm just a concerned citizen who wants animals to be treated humanely, and I'm using this great tool to help people see what's really going on. If anyone wants to watch the video, it's at www.circuses.com.
Thanks again. I hope you'll do more research on the conditions under which circus animals are trained and live, so that you can continue to help educate people about how their entertainment choices impact animals. In circuses, animals are routinely abused and deprived of their natural behaviors. Whether people want to or not, when they buy tickets to circuses with animals they are supporting animal cruelty.

Joy Zakarian,
Cardiff