Dear Editor:

Thank You for endorsing Mayor Steve Padilla for the Mayor of Chula Vista. The South Bay Alliance is building a coalition for the LGBT community and our allies for Social Networking, Business Promotion and Political Action and we also are endorsing re-electing Mayor Steve Padilla.

Mayor Steve Padilla has helped lead Chula Vista into one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. This City is one of the most diverse cities in the region with many different races and ages all making up a great city. The City has a growing gay population for those seeking a more suburban lifestyle in an exciting growing city. In fact the Mayor has supported and attended the past Gay Day in South Bay mini-pride events as well as the recent LGBT Social Mixer held in Chula Vista.

Steve Padilla has been a public servant of Chula Vista for many years, beginning right out of high school when he joined the Southwestern Police Academy and was a Police Officer and Detective for 13 years. He has served on many Committees and City Commissions giving countless hours of time to many different causes. Steve was elected to the City Council in 1994 and overwhelming re-elected him again in 1998 and then become the Mayor of Chula Vista in 2002. During his tenure we have seen Chula Vista grow into an extremely vital community stretching from the Bay to the East where the new Otay Ranch Town Center Shopping Center is. There are so many positive things that are happening in Chula Vista and we want to see them continue under his leadership.

We are proud of how Mayor Steve Padilla is leading Chula Vista and proud that he is a part of our community and has stood up to those that tried to discredit him when publicly he came out 2 years ago at the Pride Rally. Thank you again for your endorsement of Steve Padilla.

Marci Bair

Member of the South Bay Alliance

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8367

Dear Editor:

I read with great delight that the G&L Times is now sponsoring a radio talk show. I think it is awesome that in the midst of the dull din of radio talk shows there will now be one that addresses the issues of the GLBT. It has been far too long.

I am curious. From the article in the G&L Times, it appeared that the talk show would cover the “diversity” of opinion in the GLBT community. The hosts, however, seem to be stalwarts of the far left liberal positions of the majority of the G&L community. I realize, that as a sponsor only, you cannot dictate content or on-air personalities. I am curious how this show will reflect “diversity”. Preaching to the masses? What is the point?

Would it not be more beneficial to the community at large if there was a voice of dissent to the same old liberal point of view? How about pushing for an intelligent voice from the right or at least right of center? Would this not at least be more diverse? As a journalist, I know that you can appreciate balance. I, for one, being a minority, would love to have my voice heard and have a champion for my causes. As a Gay, Atheist, Libertarian I am definitely a minority in the Gay community. Do we not deserve a voice? Is diversity not best served by allowing us, the minority, to speak as loudly as the majority? If only the majority speaks in this forum, do we not suppress the minority and thus suppress diversity?

I assume there will be the occasional guest who represents a minority point of view. Sufficient? I say not. True diversity demands that intelligent and articulate opposing points of view are presented. My hope is that this will be the case. But as I have often heard on radio talk shows from both the right and the left, the hosts will dictate the discussion and debate. Will the minority be equally represented? Is not diversity the name of the game and the goal of any talk show claiming to represent the totality of the GLBT community?

I will withhold judgment until I have heard the new program. My greatest hope is that this new venture will take in the totality of the GLBT community. As a Gay man, I have seen what happens when the majority has control.

Jeffrey W. Shooter

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8107

Dear Editor:

There are a lot of politicians in this country and in this state who take bribes and who pander to special interests who scratch their backs. Toni Atkins is not one of those, and everyone knows it. Toni has always been honest and open with her constituents. Accolades were given to her for her service as an openly homosexual acting mayor of a major US city—how many of those have there been? Her integrity and calm helped heal a city ravaged by scandal and multiple official resignations, and reflected well on the LGBT community in the process.

We are all very clear on the fact that our pension fund is in a mess, and that many mistakes were made in handling it over many years. Everyone who has ever made a financial decision has had advisors. Most of our City Council members are not financial experts. They rely on others, and yes they should ask all the right questions to make sure that the investments they approve are prudent. Our City Council members did, in fact, fail in that responsibility. But it was not through dishonesty, neglect, laziness or catering to special intersts.

Toni Atkins is a public servant who has served our community well. Like every other human, she has made mistakes. But she is honest. Re-calling Toni Atkins is an idiotic notion. Trying to draw battle lines between Toni and the editor of this newspaper, may “sell” newspapers, but it is not good politics or good citizenship (or honest journalism). We all have the right to criticize and complain; but at some level of our being I think we should also say thank you to our public servants—especially the ones who do their best, do not pander to special interests and who are honest. Politics is a thankless job, especially for the honest. It’s not about not making mistakes. It’s about doing the next thing that is the right thing to do and continuing to do it.

Thank you Toni Atkins for representing our community and our city with honor and integrity, and thank you for always trying to do the right thing.

Susan Atkins

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=7931

Dear Editor:

RE: Mr. Deimling:

I’d like to take a moment and respond to your open letter. I do agree that there is a need to repair the relationship between The House of Blues and the gay community, but I can’t see how you intend to do it this way. Let me be so bold as to point out a few things, if you don’t mind.

I’d like to think the gay community shares your appreciation for the “right and freedom to express one’s self as an individual as well as choose whatever life style one may desire.” However, it should be clarified that while we appreciate it, there is no “God-given”, nor “government-given” right to profit from these freedoms.

I’m sorry you felt so constrained by your “financial and contractual agreements”. It would seem to me that numerous other venues were under the same obligations when they chose to cancel this “artist’s” appearances (and I do use the term loosely, since I can only imagine if the KKK put their shtick to music you might imply they were “artists” too).

You toss out the term “censorship” as a shield to hide behind. For the record, the First Amendment protects against the government censoring someone’s speech. For example, Fred Phelps, the notorious anti-gay minister, can stand on the street corner all day long and spew bile. As long as he does not break any laws, he can say whatever he wants without fear of censorship.

This all changes when you put him on your stage, with the full power of The House of Blues mighty marketing dollar at work. Can you see the headline now? “The House of Blues Proudly Presents The Reverend Fred Phelps!!!!!”

You state, “Neither I, nor for that matter, The House of Blues share the beliefs and views of the specific artist in question…”, yet you are more than willing to provide him with 1) a stage, 2) your marketing dollars, and 3) your name to add legitimacy to his work. As if that isn’t enough, you’re MORE THAN WILLING TO PROFIT FROM THE VERY BELIEFS AND VIEWS YOU FIND SO DISTASTEFUL. At the very least, ALL proceeds from his show should have been donated to an appropriate charity that helps victims of the very violence Buju Banton promotes.

There are many artists whom, over the years, have had questionable or distasteful lyrics. However, this is different. This “artist” writes lyrics that actively recruit and encourage violence against our community. If the tables were turned, and he was targeting YOU, would your letter read the same?

Eric Kennedy

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8284

Dear Editor:

Stop dumping on Atkins and attend some meetings

I don’t like to comment on local issues when I don’t live in the area.

However, since Toni Atkins is my representative, I will comment on the people dumping on her over the 301 project.

Somewhere in red-state Middle America there is a 17-year-old gay person who often dreams about moving. The reasons for the dreams are the same reasons many of you moved to San Diego. They have to get away from the closed minded bigotry atmosphere that thrives around them, and come to a place where they can start a better life. As those young gay kids get older and acquire the resources to move, they will come to places like San Diego.

That kind of logic is called planning. In each community, including Hillcrest, there is a planning group.

In your case that would be Uptown Planning. Each planning group holds detailed subcommittee meetings where the public is invited to help make decisions on the projects that are proposed for the area. I would bet money that the 301 project more than likely went through the Uptown subcommittees.

Like those red-state gay kids, people are going to move to San Diego, Like it or not, you are going to see a lot more high-density projects be put up along transit corridors. The only way to bring high quality projects along the traffic corridors is for you to attend the subcommittee meetings and contribute your input.

Some people say the 301 project is to large. I, on the other hand would love to see that kind of activity come to where I live in North Park. Have you driven on University Ave between Florida, and 32nd Street? Have you seen that dumpy ass Albertson’s on University and Mississippi? How about that Savon toilet on 32nd street? Thank goodness that WallGreens is opening up across the street from SavOn, and I now able to pass that garbage dump right on by. I personally would welcome a 301 project to North Park. Correct me if I am wrong, but the current site of the 301 project is not exactly a thing of beauty, nor is it a historical site.

It’s real easy to attend your subcommittee meetings and help make decisions for your neighborhood. If the developer comes back with something you don’t like, it’s up to you to set that developer on the right path. If you don’t like the 301 project, you should have went to the subcommittee meetings and let your complaints be known. Dumping on Atkins months after approval is not going to change a damn thing. It only makes you look like a bunch of crybabies.

Mike Petrogeorge

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8106

Dear Editor:

Enclosed is a comment I made at the San Diego City Council Meeting on Tuesday 19 September 2006.

I witnessed the council meeting last week and was stunned when I saw that the Bigots For Jesus were still salivating over pictures of bikini clad men this long after the gay pride events. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Hatred is a terrible curse on humankind, but it is exacerbated when it is based on self-hatred. It has been said that one cannot love others until one loves oneself. Until the Bigots For Jesus can learn to accept and love who they are, their life is going to continue to be consumed by self loathing which will continue to propel their hatred for others.

I recall watching them here when they made their invective prior to the gay pride weekend. How sad that people can be so overwhelmed by prejudice, especially justifying it in the name of Jesus whose message was about love and compassion.

I also have heard radical religious right groups at the gay pride parade where they use bull horns to further amplify their tirade of evil, claiming it is done from Christian teaching.

I don’t know if there is any direct connection between these so called Christian groups and those who committed the hate crimes at the festival in Balboa Park. But, those who used baseball bats and knives to attack gays were given license by the message of these infirm people. There certainly is a spiritual connection between the two types of haters, one group putting into action the words of the other.

It is my hope that these sick people may ultimately find joy, peace and love, especially, love.

Ted Cook

Dear Editor:

There are few things I hate more than people who manipulate statistics to bolster their arguments and propagate fear. Like the CDC, you attempt to make the numbers sound more daunting than they really are by focusing on narrow age groups and cumulative totals. Do you even know what “rate of infection” means? Let’s put things into perspective and tell the whole story.

Accordingly to the CDC, there were 12,995 AIDS deaths out of 2,398,365 total deaths in the US in 2004, the latest year for which statistics are available. Comparatively, there were 654,092 from heart disease (#1 cause of death) and 33,464 from septicemia (i.e. blood poisoning, #10). AIDS deaths accounted for about 0.54% of all deaths in the US. More people die from falling down (18,535) than from AIDS.

Perhaps, like most of the world, you also missed the latest report published in The Lancet (2006; 368:451-458), also released to coincide with the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, which shows that HAART does not reduce mortality rates for people with HIV. Analyzing information generated since the introduction of HAART, including data from over 20,000 patients, the study found that: “Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.” In other words, antiretroviral drugs are useful in boosting CD4 counts and decreasing viral loads, but these arbitrary surrogate markers are useless in determining clinical outcomes, and the drugs ultimately have had no effect on prolonging life. Thus, the only true effect of these drugs has been to produce billions of dollars in profits over the past ten years. We agree that these drugs are toxic and their side effects devastating; can we now stop marketing them to our community on behalf of an industry that continues to profit from our desperation and ignorance?

You do raise a number of sincere questions, but the problem is not dwindling dollars or disappearing prevention campaigns; it is our blurred focus and flawed approach to the most pressing issues. For community outreach to be effective, you must first identify the most critical issues facing the community and then find practical solutions to those problems. Most of us can agree that recreational drug use is a major issue. The immunosuppressive and other negative health effects of “crystal” and “poppers” have long been established; yet, instead of researching the extent of these effects and educating people on the findings, we promote the false idea that ingesting toxic chemicals has no physiological consequences in itself, and that the only effect of these drugs is psychological in their ability to lower inhibitions leading to an increased incidence of unsafe sex. Most people now realize that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease; yet, somehow we are led to believe there is no direct health risk in using crystal or poppers. If we focus on the primary health consequences of these toxic recreational drugs, perhaps then people will pay more attention and get involved. Such a renewed strategy could provide the motivation the community needs to actually reach people before it’s too late.

Fiat Lux!

Ozell Xianté