Dear Editor:

On November 7th, Russell O’Brien, Editor In Chief of Uptown Publications, was concerned enough to exchange a series of e-mails with me. We honestly and politely discussed the political ad that was published on page 60 of the 11/3 issue of the glt Gay & Lesbian Times. I wish to thank, Mr. O’Brien, for the obvious attention you paid to our exchange. By the time you read this letter, the election will have been decided, so this is not an attempt to cry foul. Rather it is an attempt to establish rules and guidelines that will restore a sense of ethics and place limits on such ads in order to serve the voters rather than deceive them.

With regards to the debated ad, Mr. O’Brien questioned if our differing opinions on the appropriateness of the ad weren’t really a question of subjective views. In the end, we both agree the ad was a display of savvy. Where we appear to differ is whether or not this was also a gross display of public deception. I hold that the ad did a tremendous disservice to the paper, its readers and the democratic process upon which we all rely. Mr. O’Brien has not expressed those sentiments. The difference between our views is indeed subjective, but I argue this kind of display of savvy crosses the line of ethical tactics in the political arena and more stringent tests must be placed on future ads.

The ad in question was placed by “GLBT VOTE 2005”. They represent a group of persons whose members are apparently from the ranks of gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered voters. It suggested the reader take it to the poll and vote for Jerry Sanders, the City Council posts and the propositions they endorse in the ad. The deception is clear. Commonly, LGBT and GLBT are interchangeable in our community and when either is used, we interpret them as the “Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgendered” and “Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Transgendered” respectively. In either case, they both imply the greater lesbian, gay, bi and transgendered community. Was the ad savvy or savvy taken to the point of blatant deception? Contact Mr. O’Brien to express your subjective opinion of the ad’s intentions and ethical appropriateness.

Personally, I believe Mr. O’Brien and the paper he serves have served our community very well in the past years and am most appreciative that it exists for our community. However, the “GLBT VOTE 2005” ad underscores the need for the paper and “GLBT VOTE” to reconsider the policies and rules that govern such endorsement ads. I support “GLBT VOTE 2005” in its right to endorse and publicly state its endorsements. What I do not support is their unethical and intentional deception of the members of our community.

A solid start would be a written apology to both candidates, their campaign staffs, the LGBT community at large and all the voters of San Diego.

Lastly, I reiterate, my thanks to Mr. O’Brien and to the staff of Gay & Lesbian Times for their continuing service to the community. This little bump in the road doesn’t wipe out your years of honorable service to the community, but bumps like this must be addressed directly and quickly.

Bill Kelly

Dear Editor:

For all the decades I have lived in San Diego, I admit today that I was clueless about James Hartline’s history until I read the Nov. 2 letters section of CityBeat, referring to the paper’s Oct. 5 story on this character.

[CityBeat’s] Oct. 5 story should be required reading for all members and friends of San Diego’s gay community. This is the kind of article that should have been available and shared with the press and community leaders before the 2005 Pride event. Gosh, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, this Hartline must have the darkest of hearts.

Any time this psycho/fanatic turns up before the media, council and community groups, the article below – with all its highlighted portions – ought to be distributed.

The CityBeat reporter did an extraordinary job.

Hartline, who probably suffers from dementia, appears to be a career felon and drug addict filled with self-hatred and has dedicated the remainder of his life striking out at what he hates so much about himself.

With everything I learned from the article, I cannot believe the gall of this individual. And while I believe God has forgiven him, and will continue to do so, the rest of us would really have to muster an inordinate amount of inner strength to do so.

Has any of the gay and daily press picked up on this? It’s terrifying, yet very good reading.

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

A few weeks ago at a public debate for Mayor, a telling sign emerged with regard to the political philosophy of Candidate Jerry Sanders. When posed a question regarding The City of San Diego supporting a Federal Department of Peace, Mr.Sanders appeared uncomfortable and avoided a clear yes answer. There is currently both a House Resolution and Companion Bill in The Upper Chamber promoting such Department within our Federal Government. Why is it that the very mention of a Department of Peace evokes images of unpatriotic and left leaning radicals? Do we not pride ourselves in our so-called peaceful society? Why do Democratic Politicians espouse nonviolence through federal mandates while their colleagues on the right leave it to the individual? We do not allow carcinogens in our water supply by appealing to singular individuals but rather consider the welfare of our Nation as a whole.

Speaking of America, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be run out of town on a rail by refusing to support a Federal Department of Peace. Is this why we Americans have so quickly forgotten the work of Mother Theresa and The Holy Pontiff himself. I believe that Mr. Sanders was fearful of supporting such a measure on grounds based in political-philosophy The GOP, at least for several generations has viewed the work of peacemakers as being strangely subversive to America’s vital interests. There exist many San Diegans who share this twisted view of peace not being patriotic. They are for the most part, a belligerent group of flag wavers concealed as always calm and in control. Nothing could be further from the truth. These folks fail to recognize why a Badger fights ferociously when cornered. Our City Fathers would do us all a favor, as did many municipalities in our great land, by endorsing the concept of a Federal Department of Peace. And ironically, San Diego’s Military has the most to gain from such proposal. Is there a better deterrent to unnecessary war than peace?

Daniel J. Smiechowski