Dear Editor:

We offer sincere thanks to the entire community for the overwhelming support of the Out at the Park event on July 8.

The LGBT community and our allies came out in force to support the Gay Men’s Chorus of San Diego, enjoy the ballgame and stand up against hate and homophobia. In total 1,208 tickets were purchased in support of the first ever San Diego Pride Out at the Park event.

The Padres may have lost the game; however, our community achieved so much with the positive coverage and visibility of our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

I’d like to clarify a quote attributed to me in the Union-Tribune. The quote about not seeing us in drag was taken out of context. The entire statement included the point that it should not matter to anyone what we wear or how we look and that there is no room in our society for discrimination against any segment of our community.

I applaud the support everyone who went to the game and to those who helped spread a positive message of equality and freedom for our LGBT community.

Ron deHarte

Executive Director

San Diego Pride

Dear Editor:

Let’s stop framing the debate over whether to endorse now or endorse later in the lofty terms of participatory democracy and admit that this was really a tactical issue. Todd Gloria has the current benefit of more support downtown with its attendant fundraising advantages, so he can afford to wait and work with this advantage; Stephen Whitburn needed the momentum boost of this endorsement early on. This is what is behind the “endorse now” v. “endorse later” positions. Stephen won it fair and square at last night’s meeting that in my view exemplified the best features of the Democratic Party and participatory democracy. I was proud to be there and participate. Whether Stephen or Todd is the eventual winner – I supported Stephen but vigorously applauded Todd as well – District 3 will be the winner. All 4 candidates were terrific. It is a shame that we cannot clone such candidates for the other City Council Districts where progressive candidates are sadly lacking. (Marty Emerald, also at the meeting, promises to be a fine progressive candidate in District 7. Donna Frye who was also there clearly is the progressive Council leader in San Diego.) I will support the Democratic candidate left standing at the end of this campaign. That is how democracy works, and the how Democratic Party traditionally has worked. As I left the meeting last night, a car careened by, its idiot occupants shouting something about “fags” - just another reminder of why we all need to stick together.

Charlie Pratt

Dear Editor:

I was more than a little surprised to read in Nicole Murray’s column that an “enormous American flag”, sponsored in part by the San Diego chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), will be displayed in the San Diego Pride parade.

While I appreciate the patriotic sentiment of those sponsoring this flag, carrying an American flag horizontally, as an “enormous” flag would have to be, is a sign of disrespect to the flag, and a violation of US law.

US Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, “Respect for Flag”, unambiguously states in paragraph (c) that “The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.”

I do not believe that either SD Pride or those sponsoring this flag intend any disrespect, and I understand that other pride parades have displayed the flag in this manner, however, the fact remains that carrying a US flag horizontally IS both disrespectful and unlawful.

I urge SD Pride and those sponsoring this flag to replace the “enormous” flag with one of a size that can be appropriately and respectfully carried in the parade.

Rev Keith W Ramsey

Dear Editor:

Last month a few brave members of Congress stood up to George W. Bush and said no to his war without end. Congresswoman Susan Davis was not one of them. Since her vote to give “The Decider” a blank check to continue the blood bath in Iraq, dozens more of our troops have been killed. Rep. Davis’ vote was a victory for Bush/Cheney and their compadres in the oil and arms industry. For the poor 19 year old American Marine who will bleed to death somewhere in Baghdad this week, Rep. Davis’ vote was a betrayal. A vote to end funding the madness in Iraq could have cost Rep. Davis campaign contributions from the arms industry and votes from the few San Diegan military families that delusionally beleive we are in Iraq to “spread democracy.” I voted for Ms. Davis because I thought she voted on principal rather than politics. I was wrong.

I urge San Diegans to visit Rep. Davis’ website (http://www.house.gov/susandavis/) and to read her carefully crafted and misleading press release regrading her vote to give George W. Bush another blank check with no strings attached. In November America voted for change. Rep. Davis’ vote shows it is just business as usual.

Jack Hogan

Dear Editor:

Nicole’s column in the June 28th issue of the GLT states that we should be proud of the American flag and she asks why it is rarely displayed at GLBT events. Nicole, perhaps it’s because the Bush administration would prefer GLBT citizens did not exist; perhaps it’s because we’re not allowed to openly serve in the military; perhaps it’s because our nation does not allow us to marry; perhaps it’s because we’re denied our partner’s social security benefits – the areas of bigotry and prejudice against us by our own government are almost endless and I, for one, am tired of “sitting in the back of the bus.”

I don’t understand why we should proudly display the flag of a nation that relegates the GLBT population as second class citizens, if not freaks. Once liberty, justice and equality for all are achieved, I’m sure that all citizens and organizations of this country will display the American flag with true pride.

Tony Whittle

Dear Editor:

Hats off to the San Diego Men’s Chorus and the women of the San Diego Chorus for their powerful performance of “Sing for the Cure” at the Birch North Park Theatre recently. Under the direction of Jerry R. Foust, Kim Hulbert, and Kathleen Hansen the 150-strong combined choir raised the roof in a moving original dramatic work that sings a story of hope and healing for those affected by breast cancer, specifically breast cancer survivors and their families and friends.

Narrated by actress Nichelle Nichols, Lt. Uhura of Star Trek fame, we laughed and cried as the true stories of breast cancer survivors and their families came to light. The all volunteer orchestra was as professional as any you will hear in the county. Kudos also to Sempra Energy for being an active community partner in sponsoring this benefit performance for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, San Diego.

The next time you want to lift your spirits, go hear the music and magnificent voices of our local choruses. We need more evenings like this in our lives.

Robert Tormey

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the article on AIDS dissidents.

It’s quite a courageous thing for a gay publication to give AIDS dissidents and AIDS rethinking a fair analysis.

It’s been over 20 years of AIDS, and it’s about time to set the hysteria aside and talk about this issue rationally. I hope that this article will get the ball rolling in the larger gay community.

Dan Stanhope

Dear Editor:

Pat Sherman introduces his article on AIDS dissidence by characterizing scepticism towards the dogma that HIV causes AIDS a “conspiracy theory”. By doing this he repeats Prof. John Moore’s blatantly misleading statement quoted twice in the article:

[The AIDS dissident movement] basically says that every scientist, every physician and every clinician out of the hundreds of thousands of professionals working worldwide on this is either some kind of malicious scumbag who will do anything for money, or we’re all stupid.

The “AIDS dissident movement”says nothing of the kind: Virology is an esoteric discipline, and the HIV issue very complex, even to those who are supposed to be expert in the field. Sherman’s article cites an example in the disagreement between prof. Moore and Dr. Smith over HIV genomic variability. On this background, it is understandable the “hundreds of thousands of professionals working worldwide” do not need to be stupid or conspirators to feel it is not their place to question what they are told by the experts.

Furthermore, those who do not have a degree of implicit faith in the medico-scientific system, within which they have received their education and work, tend to get weeded out automatically. There is nothing odd or sinister about this; people need to believe in what they are doing.

What is sinister, however, is the fear of getting on the wrong side of the HIV/AIDS establishment the article brings out so well. This is a story we are all qualified to judge; and it is a testament to Pat Sherman’s journalistic instinct that he affords us such a plain view of the many faces of this monster - suppression, censorship, revenge - all personified in Prof. Moore. The message is unmistakable: “when it comes to HIV/AIDS science, toe the party line or else. . .”

The disclaimers and anonymous contributions in Sherman’s article proove that scientists and journalist alike have understood this message, famously formulated by NIAID director and HIV/AIDS kingpin, Anthony Fauci, in the American Association for Advancement of Science Observer September 1, 1989 . Fauci’s piece begins,”AIDS has created a whole new interaction between scientists and the press”, and ends, “Journalists who make too many mistakes, or are too sloppy, are going to find that their access to scientists may diminish”.

When one is powerful enough, one does not have to veil one’s threats.

Prof. Duesberg has often been reviled for his “conservative” view of gays. I am not going to discuss the drug-AIDS-“gay lifestyle” hypothesis, simply remark that when putting forth a general hypothesis, one has to be general in one’s descriptions, even knowing that a complex set of circumstances may thereby become over-simplified.

On the other hand, the official “(passive) anal transmission” theory was developed by the AIDS establishment specifically for American and European gays. On other continents, like Africa and Asia, the proposed route and direction of transmission have been conveniently reversed to suit our Victorian preconceptions about sexual practices in the former colonies. Does that not ring a bell somewhere?

Claus Jensen