Dear Editor:

I recently read two letters to the editor in which readers complained about film critic Scott Marks’ review of RENT with an intensity more appropriate to debates on the Iraq War or abortion rights. While I was actually a fan of RENT, anyone who can’t see the wit and knowledge behind Marks’s often hilarious pan is seriously misunderstanding the art of film criticism as a whole. Film reviewing has turned into a debased form of consumer advice in the last few decades, but Mr. Marks is keeping the tradition of the art’s best practitioners—Andrew Sarris, Manny Farber, and Jonathan Rosenbaum, just to name a few—alive. His insightful pieces for the Times are more than simply thumbs up or down recommendations for audience members too lazy to think for themselves; they are provocative examinations of world cinema that add to the reader’s understanding of the art form. I disagree with Marks as often as I agree with him (I loved WALK THE LINE and SYRIANA, for example, two movies Mr. Marks hated), but I never fail to look at movies from a fresh perspective after I read his work. The Gay and Lesbian Times should be commended for giving a forum to one of the best writers on film in America today.

Jim Hemphill

Dear Editor:

Hello and thanks for running the article Promising HIV test turns up false positives, on one fourth of San Fran Oraquick HIV tests coming up FALSE positive. Los Angeles and New York found the same problems. The government had told us this test, like all HIV tests, was better than 99% accurate. To me, this brings up the question of why oh why, do we still believe the other HIV blood tests are still 99% plus accurate. There are 67 conditions known to make the ELISA and Western Blot blood tests show false positive as well. Common things spring these tests to a positve, such as colds, flu, flu vaccination, hepatitis, and, dare I say it, even “RECEPTIVE ANAL SEX”. All are listed in scientific journals and the internet as causing False Positive HIV Blood Tests. Even the PCR based Viral Load Test shows a viral load in 10 to 60% of confirmed HIV negatives, depending on which PCR test one takes. Does that sound like better than 99% accuracy? Hell, my dog’s blood will show an HIV Viral Load.

Why do we not intelligently step back and question these things? What happened to our healthy sense of scepticism? I think the answer as to why and what happened, is that over 20 years ago, we gays were “infected” by our own individual and collective gay community fears. What fears you ask? How soon we forget: The Fears of Gay bashing or being arrested, fears of someone finding out we were gay, fears of losing our jobs, fears of our families finding out we are gay, fears that God, after all, might actually hate us. And once gay men were found to be dying of various diseases, the overpowering fear of AIDS!

How could anyone question this HIV and AIDS business, especially when people were and still are dying? That fact alone still brings fear to our hearts, closes our usually open minds, and seemingly prevents us from asking “What exactly did they die from, and what else was going on with them?” The standard answer is AIDS, which is comprised of an HIV positive test and 30 common illnesses that even HIV negative people die from every day. Do we ever consider other factors such as: Were they drug addicts, did they have emotional problems, did they succumb to the side effects of HIV meds, or even, did they just scare themselves to death? Why do we blindly and unquestioningly believe what we are told to believe? Maybe Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is right, Maybe we are just a bunch of Scared Little Girlie Men. BUT our fear IS understandable, and the doors to our courage are only waiting for us to step through them.

Michael Geiger

Dear Editor:

This is the second time I have written about Nicole Murray-Ramirez in regards to his column. It seems to me that Nicole is influenced by a more conservative agenda that almost goes against the very nature of seeking rights and universal understanding. The latest example of this is his support of a clearly religious and ultra conservative website (www.savemerrychristmas.org). I went to this website and visited some of the links that are offered.I found it to be a very conservative website with a clear message that people must say, “Merry Christmas”. As a gay Christian man I think that it is absurd that anyone should be forced to say, “Merry Christmas” or anything else. The whole point is the thought not the forced requirement of saying it. What next? The forced celebration of Easter by making everyone say, “Happy Easter”.

I think there is nothing wrong with saying, “ Happy Holidays”. Only an uptight ultra conservative with way to much time on his/her hands is going to care what people say at the check out line in Sears as to whether or not they mentioned Christmas or not. Are you going to start public flogging for people who don’t wish you a Merry Christmas? You lose the meaning when you force people to say it. Let people say what is in their heart. Keep freedom of speech alive! Grow up Nicole! Oh and yes, Merry Christmas!!

Daniel Stillwell