Dear Editor:

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that I did not intend to suggest or imply in my letter to the editor of the GL Times and SD-GLBT yahoo group on October 23, 2004 that Mr. Katcher posed any danger to youth or otherwise. I regret that anyone read my letter in this way. My complaint has been with The Center leadership and I did not intend for my comments to cause any harm or slight to Mr. Katcher. I understand that a background check was ultimately performed on Mr. Katcher with clean results and I hope that Mr. Katcher remains active in the community.

Richard Woulfe

Dear Editor:

After hearing that Bush won because people with values voted for him, I have become angry. I have values and I voted for my values. The problem is that the neo-conservative right has hijacked the word “values”.

I think the first step to helping our country more closely resemble what it purports to be is for us to have a discussion of our value-laden words. Do we really all agree on what these words mean?

For example, I am “pro-life”. I support contraception and abortion because I value the fulfilled lives of women, and the quality-of-life of children who would otherwise be born to parents who either didn’t want them or don’t have the emotional or financial resources to raise them.

I am “pro-life” because I question the morality of killing 100,000 actual civilians in order to hypothetically prevent possible losses of our own.

Isn’t religion a “special interest”? Wouldn’t “family values” mean supporting the love and happiness of those children raised in gay households? Do “Christian values” include supporting the death penalty? Is “faith-based” of more utility than “fairness-based”? Doesn’t “democracy” suggest “live and let live”? Couldn’t “patriotism” mean driving a fuel-efficient vehicle?

Are you feeling angry? Depressed? We don’t have to wait 4 years for a change. Think about your own personal definitions. Let’s stop letting the neo-cons define our value-laden words!

Carol Scherbaum

Dear Editor:

The press release from the Center on Center that resulted in GLT’s “New Project for GLBT seniors underway” on page 16 of GLT’s Nov 4, 2004 issue (#880) automatically rescinds my pledge to Shawn Ingram and A J Davis of the Center’s staff not to publicize last summer’s unanimously-adopted CUSP Mission statement solely using the acronym GLBT (twice, to the deliberate exclusion of ungrammatical “LGBT”). This action was noted by members of the male Gay community at a Center “Monday Night Decision Group” soon after, by a vote of 13 in favor of CUSP’s action, 3 (all Center facilitators) opposing and 3 abstentions (the moderating facilitator and two newcomers to San Diego). As long as CUSP exists, that recorded mission statement stands.

Former CUSP (and SWAP) members serve an apology at the November 18 “Initial CUSP Meeting” (sic) at the Center from Dolores, Shawn or at least AJ Davis, the full time staffer responsible for this error. CUSP has a solid record of accomplishment this year as a worthy successor of five -year-old SWAP, Seniors With A Purpose. It is not a new organization.

Prime Timers Worldwide San Diego Chapter may not be included in the so-called Gay & Lesbian “Marriage Equality” aspects of the Center’s Public Policy activities.

Jay Murley