MAY 20, 1994

COMMUNITY FORUM

GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE 11

Separate personal perspectives

To the Editors:

I imagine that you are accustomed to hearing from subscribers most often when we have a criticism of the paper, and I must admit that I have fallen into this trap. Therefore, please hear me when I express my sincere appreciation for and admiration of the terrific paper the Chronicle has become. I especially admire the way you have handled the complicated issues of race and racism in the recent past. Seldom have I seen a paper give its opponents such a fair hearing to express their points of view.

That being said, I would like to offer some constructive criticism regarding the lead article by Barry Daniels in the [May 6] issue ("KSU prof denied partner benefit"). The information was relevant and useful, but I am concerned that the article abruptly lapsed from objective reporting of the story to a personal editorial by Mr. Daniels (starting on page 9, the first full paragraph in the second column). His perspective and opinion as an associate faculty member is important, interesting and relevant, but I do not think it belonged in a news article.

Since I do not imagine that many readers disagree with Mr. Daniels' personal opinion, I do not think this particular incident is of any great concern. Nevertheless, it seems to diminish the growing journalistic professionalism in the Chronicle to which I have become accustomed, and because of which I have become a paid subscriber. I urge you to consider leaving personal perspectives on the news to clearly marked editorial spaces.

Best regards for continued growth, service and success.

Eric Helmuth

Even the most professional, conscientious journalists write stories unintentionally slanted by their personal perspectives. In recent times, editors have allowed journalists to state their perspectives openly, rather than being thinly masked as "common fact." Daniels' comments, written in the first person, helped frame his article and allowed readers to decide whether his reporting was objective (as a Kent professor himself), while introducing additional perspective from an interested observer.-Eds.

Waiting to be rescued

To the Editors:

writer misused "empowerment” and would have been more honest if he had selected "entitlement."

I write as response to what appears to be as epidemic as AIDS, a notion that agencies, doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc. are responsible for not only problems, but all solutions. This particular author seems to hold what I believe to be a rather small agency culpable for not meeting all of the needs of its clients. The scales seem to be tipped by people like this man, because we

have become a nation that can murder parents and hang a jury, because, as individuals we have come to believe we have no responsibility. Something or someone, in this case, Health Issues Taskforce, is the bad guy, the culprit, the reason the HIV+ population in Cleveland is angry. And, gee, if this board would publish a newsletter, the writer would feel vindicated. I doubt it. He'd still be angry.

66

Perhaps he and those he represents should pick up a copy of Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl, because what made her remarkable was her indefatigable spirit, her ultimate belief in individual goodness while surrounded by monstrous horror, and the entire diary is devoted to her demand that she, and she alone, had the responsibility for herself and her ideals. She says, . I must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out." Note that she says, I. She inspired generations by subscribing to Kennedy's impalement, " ... ask what you can do." The writer would do well to speak for himself and look within. He might find that to be his most "empowering" source, rather than spending his energy blaming, demanding, and pointing his finger outside, waiting for others to rescue him. He sounds like the Long Island Railroad assassin who maintained his innocence because he was victimized by society, or the recently con-

mentioned article. This could be about anyone who would have written such a letter. As the past Director of Client Services for Health Issues Taskforce, I too am "outraged" by the nonsense that the author of this letter has alleged. Mr. Phelp, shame on you. How do you know whether or not there are individuals on the Board of HIT who are HIV infected? Perhaps you are confusing the former policy that included clients as board members with the notion that no one on that board is sero-positive. Additionally, a person's HIV status is protected by law, surely you know that.

According to the concise Oxford dictionary, "empower" is defined as: "authorized, license, (person to do); enable." You are correct, HIT is an agency not interested in enabling. What they do is absolutely provide emergency assistance, filling in gaps requiring clients to take responsibility for their very lives. I cannot imagine anything more useful, harkening back to the slogan from the Peace Corps "if you give a person a fish, they will eat for one day. If you teach a person to fish they will eat for life." It is the job of HIT, under the supervision of the board to create a system, reliant upon limited funding, that promotes self sufficiency rather than dependence. That would be "enabling."

You have implied that you are “authorized" by a sizable community. In my former capacity as the Director of Client Services, I was privy to confidential data which directly contradicts your statement that you represent a majority of HIT clients. You do not. Why don't you stick to the facts? You are unhappy. You must have an issue with the board. You want an investigation about something. As a social worker, I read this to be about a majority of one . . . you.

Sylvia Colón, MSSA, LSW

victed spy, Aldrich H. Ames, claiming his Risk is more like 1 in 4

espionage did not hurt anyone, his wife being unjustly persecuted and prosecuted. No heroes, they. I suspect this man, the author of "Empowerment now," creates more derision than good. It's too bad, because I suspect those bureaucrats at Health Issues Taskforce and their volunteer Board will end up paying attention to people like this man trying to put out his fire rather than attending to what brought them to working in AIDS, their individual belief that they could make a difference in some lives rather than all lives.

Name withheld Its only relevance is to me

Occasionally, I pick up your paper at HIT does not enable

Arabica. This time I was struck by a letter calling for "empowerment," written by someone who addressed outrage at the agency, Health Issues Taskforce and its ineffective bureaucracy ["Empowerment now!," May 6].

I read the letter several times and was struck not by its allegations and obvious anger but by something simple. I think the

To the Editors:

While I have retired from working in the field of HIV/AIDS, I feel I must respond to the [Community Forum letter] dated May 6, 1994 titled "Empowerment Now"! I am directing this to Mr. Phelp, because his name appeared at the close of the above

To the Editors:

In his recent article on the origin of AIDS [Apr. 22], Joe Carroccio spends some 50 paragraphs lashing out at the FDA, the FBI, biomedical warfare programs, and fundamentalist Christians. Finally he gets to the point and offers some scientific data that reveal that there was no HIV in the gay blood supply in New York City before 1978. Also, the earliest known cases of AIDS appeared in Manhattan gays who were injected with the hepatitis B vaccine after November 1978.

This is an interesting correlation, but hardly proof that AIDS came from the vaccine. I don't find it unexpected that a sexually transmitted disease first shows up and spreads in a group that is defined by the case study as promiscuous.

It's true that we don't know why AIDS first showed up. But frankly, the Patient Zero theory seems more plausible than Carroccio's "only possible explanation" that there was some governmental plot to annihilate all homosexuals and presumably all

of black Africa.

No doubt, research for biomedical warfare has developed some horrific products. But to imagine that a Russian emigre, who might be a double agent, masterminded a scheme that involved the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization to exterminate knowingly gays and blacks is just a little too fantastic. In these days when it is apparently glamorous to be a whistle-blower and appear on 20/20, is it plausible that all the people needed to execute this massive extermination plan would have kept it a secret for 15 years?

Of course there is the horrible possibility that some vaccine may have been contaminated by accident. Carroccio mentions that June Goodfield indicated that viral contamination was suspected in a batch of the vaccine. But who is June Goodfield? And what were the grounds for the suspicion? And what kind of viral contamination was suspected? Carroccio doesn't seem interested in pursuing this less dramatic possibility.

What really irritated me about this article, however, was not Carroccio's theory on the origin of AIDS. I was amazed that he states that "we know that only 1 in 250 unprotected sexual encounters involving anal sex will result in infection." Did I miss something? Where in the world did that statistic come from? I can't imagine how any serious analysis of any set of statistics could arrive at that conclusion.

If the chances of contracting AIDS are really less that 1⁄2 of 1 percent, why bother with safe sex? It's probably more dangerous to drive your car down the street. Unfortunately, several of my friends will tell you from experience that the risk is more like 1 in 4. I don't know if you can really assign a risk percentage to unsafe sex. But I think that Carroccio does the community a great disservice by implying that unprotected sex carries so little risk.

Mark Mraz

For those who missed the addendum in the May 6 issue, Carroccio advises that the article was based on information from two books: AIDS and the Doctors of Death, and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot. Both are authored by Alan Cantwell, M.D. and published by Aries Rising Press in Los Angeles.

Community Forum

The Chronicle encourages everyone to write and express your opinion about the community or the paper. Please, however, keep letters constructive, and avoid namecalling and personal attacks. Please be brief. We reserve the right to edit letters. We will print your name unless you specifically ask us not to.

Address letters to the Chronicle, P.O. Box 5426, Cleveland, Ohio, 44101, or fax to 216-621-5282 (24 hours). Include your address and phone number so we may contact you to verify the letter.

CINEMATHEQUE

"EXTRAORDINARY"

.. NEW YORK TIMES

the

Queen

Cleveland Premiere!

Adults Only!

Double Feature!

THURS., JUNE 2 AT 9:30 PM BLUE

FRI., JUNE 3 AT 7:30 PM

AT THE CLEVELAND INSTITUTE OF ART * 11141 EAST BLVD ADMISSION EACH FILM $5, BOTH FILMS EACH NIGHT $9 FREE PARKING AIR-CONDITIONED * 421-7450

A FILM BY DEREK JARMAN Cleveland Premiere!

6/3 AT 9:50 PM

6/4 AT 7 PM

W

w

Headwaves

HAIR DESIGNS

Frank Spinelli

1710 W. Market St. Akron, OH 44313

216/864-8877