Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 15, 2004)
4 j U S t O U t - October 15.2004 out Wrong rights To th e E d ito r : "Wicker bonders The Gift Store - Simply Wonderful Dept. 5 6 Collectibles - D e m d a co L O c c ito n e Silver P lu m e A pril C o rn e ll Y ankee C an d les C ra b tre e & Evelyn fo r that special g ift G ift c e r tific a te s available 503/397-3199 2017 Columbia Blvd • St. Helens, OR 97051 (yentle ( ? kiiopiactlc (Saie SI /Hassa$e ^ tee /H assage SI (Z 7eatt*teht If von have been injured in a ear accident within the last o m onths 3 7 0 3 SE 3 9 th A v e n u e Located at 39th & Powell We Handle Insurance Billing 5 0 1 -6 5 9 -2 8 4 4 am writing to respond to your O ct. 1 article “Phoenix Rising: Crime Survivors Turn Tragedies into a Platform for Change.” 1 was glad for Just Out's interest in covering this issue and pleased with the overall reporting of our efforts to bring about a more just response to violence through criminal justice reform. There was one factual error that 1 want to address and clarify its significance for crime survivors. T he article incorrectly reported that 1 have testified before Congress in support of the federal “victims rights” constitutional amendment. As advocates for a system jh a t works to meet the needs of crime survivors and communities affected by violence, Crime Sur vivors for Community Safety (formerly Sur vivors Advocating for an Effective System) has taken a strong position in opposition to the amendment. There are a number of reasons for our posi tion on this issue. T he primary reason is that this constitutional amendment represents misplaced energy. At the same time that legislators push for this amendment, funding for victims assis tance programs has been cut drastically. We sup port comprehensive legislation that will help meet the needs of survivors through counseling, shelter care and employment assistance. These real needs of survivors are not addressed hy the proposed amendment. The amendment could put domestic vio lence survivors at greater risk. In situations where batterers make false claims of criminal conduct or when victims defend themselves against their batterers and the result is the arrest of the true victim, the batterer would then he able to exercise the rights in this amendment. In this situation, batterers would he able to obtain information about the whereabouts and release of their victims, object to their release and have influence on the true victims’ prosecution and sentencing. For more information on why we take this position, people can visit the American Civil Liberties Union s site at www.aclu.org. I believe that criminal justice reform work is a microcosm for the larger struggle to bring about human and civil rights for all of us. Thanks for the opportunity to share our vision and hope with the community. A rwen B ird Crime Survivors for Community Safety Editor’s note: Just Out regrets the error. Bush’s anal sex lies To th e E d ito r : A extraordinary flora 1019 nw 11th ave p 503.228.2558 n Oct. 1 Just Out story failed to acknowl edge that many HIV-positive men feel demonized hy the “HIV Stops with Me" crusade (“HIV Stops with Them"]. Furthermore, the Bush administration is funding this crusade by trashing existing HIV prevention efforts. Bush appointees are shamefully perpetuating lies about anal sex that were started during Pres ident Ronald Reagans administration. For example, an official government site, www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html, quotes an unnamed “surgeon general” as having said “anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice” because “condoms may he more likely to break during anal intercourse” and “it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed.” The above quote is not an oversight. To appease Christian-Republicans who teach that condoms do not work, Bush officials revised every condom Web page under the guise of science. Many anti-gay Web sites erroneously cite the “scientific source" of this quote as being a Sept. 18, 1987, USA Today interview with Sur geon General C. Everett kux>p. Actually, this warning came much later from a task force con vened hy K(x>p that was meant to pacify those who opposed mailing to every household in America a brochure recommending condoms for the prevention of HIV. In the final days of the Reagan administra tion, a Feb. 18, 1989, Los Angeles Times news story said Kcxip’s “task force issued a new warn ing Friday that the risk of condom failure in anal intercourse is so high that the practice should he avoided entirely— with condoms or without.” But this warning is not based on science. British studies have shown that condoms break very rarely during anal sex with adequate lubrication. HIV prevention programs are suffering under Bush. I recently visited a federally funded HIV testing clinic that was negligently distrib uting a 1987 revision brcx:hure recommending nonoxynol-9 spermicidal luhe to prevent AIDS. This is inexcusable, because four years ago the Centers for Disease Control and Pre vention issued a warning that “N-9 should not he recommended as an effective means of HIV prevention.” In fact, the luhe KY-Plus (containing N-9) was “most likely to damage the rectal epitheli um," according to a study, “Relative Safety of Sexual Lubricants for Rectal Intercourse,” pub lished in the June issue of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. O ther common lubes, such as Astroglide, caused “some degree of rectal dam age” in large doses. Only the methy(cellulose and carrageenan-based luhe formulations were not toxic, as was the phosphate-buffered saline control substance. The seaweed extract car rageenan and the chemical compound methyl- cellulose are inexpensive, tasteless fixxl thicken ing agents, hut they are not yet being marketed as sex lubes. Gay adolescent men deserve accurate health information based on current science and not homophobic Christian-Republican ideology. Teaching children that condoms do not work and blaming HIV-positive men for spreading AID S will lead to more HIV infections. Why bother using a condom if they don’t work any way and you can blame the other guy? T homas K raemer Corvallis Bush: The truth is an option To th e E d ito r : he presidential/vice presidential debates show us that the Bush administration still wants us to connect Iraq and 9/11, just as it wants us to believe in weapons of mass destruc tion and that lesbians and gay men are second- class citizens. Even though George W. Bush may appear to he a liar, an analysis of hierarchies gives us a broader view, a fresh perspective of what we are observing in our president. In his fxxik Dryhmgso, anthropologist John Gwaltney presents interviews with many African Americans, several of whom discuss the patterns of lying that develop in the hierarchy between whites and blacks. O ne woman remarks that the difference in whites and blacks is that blacks know when they are lying. A man states that white folks don’t want to hear the truth and that is why they are always lying to blacks; whites can’t tell the difference between a lie and the truth. In hierarchies, people obtain information from peers and people in levels above them, but are less likely to listen to people in groups lower on the hierarchy. For example, heterosexuals are not required to learn about lesbiaas and gay men before they cast their ballots concerning same- sex marriage. An excerpt from Clueless at the Top describes this typical hierarchical pattern: Higher people in hierarchies often appear to he lying. W hat appears us lies to lower groups seem honest to higher people who are operating with a small amount of true information and a large amount of blame, judgments, self-interest, lack of exposure to lower groups and fear. High er people sometimes go through elaborate con tortions to support their false beliefs, while building their case on false information. There fore, they appear comical, crazy, ridiculous or devious to lower people. In the United States, a standard of free choice exists. If people on top want to build hierarchies, they must find ways to convince everyone else to remain engaged in their hier archy. One way to recruit and retain lower peo ple while denying the hierarchy that benefits them is to use rationalizations, rhetoric and “noble causes.” Bush has isolated himself at the top of pow erful hierarchies in the United States and has placed himself on top of his own world hier archy. Even if his advisers and staff are not from groups that are high on our hierarchies— white, male, wealthy, heterosexual, able-KxJied, tall, Christian, educated in elite private schextis, speaking standard English— they identify with higher groups and their top-of-the-hierarchy perspectives. Is Mr. Bush intentionally lying, or is he just clueless at the top? Whichever it is, the result is the same. As with anyone who operates solely with top-of-the-hierarchy perspectives, the truth is an optional part of the discussion. C harlotte and H arriet C hildress Eugene What were they thinking? To th e E d ito r : can understand conservative Christians voting for Measure 36, hut gay men? A tele vision ad launched by Yes on 36 shows a gay couple prixrlaiming they’ve taken legal steps to guarantee certain health benefits, they think marriage should only he between a man and a woman, and they’re going to vote for Mea sure 36. What these traitors, uh, men don’t say is there are many more legal rights to marriage than health benefits, such as payment of wages to a relative of a deceased employee; payment of workers’ compensation benefits after death; control, division, acquisition and disposition of community property after dissolution of mar riage; and more than 50 others. But more importantly, banning same-sex marriage is in violation of the 14th Amend ment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Denying one class of citizens rights granted to another is discrimination. No matter how one feels about same-sex marriage, this should he considered before voting for any prohibitions against it. I feel most, if not all, prohibitions against gay marriage will be struck down by the courts on the basis of denying equal rights. What were these men thinking? Do they really want the rest of us to be denied rights enjoyed by others? I T a r ^ T aylor Portland Just say no To the E ditor : fter reading and comparing the “yes” and “no” arguments in the voters’ pamphlet on Measure 36, I noticed something I wanted to share. The “no” arguments are from personal experiences. These families will be adversely A
