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