Letters to the editor – April 1, 2016

Posted: April 1st, 2016 | Featured, Letters to the editor | No Comments

How we treat each other

Ref: “Back Out With Benny: Let’s stop judging each other,” Vol. 7, Issue 5 or at

Judgment is rampant in our small community and you are more than right, it should stop. I remember one time I was kind of seeing this guy and he told his friends about me and one of them, one who I don’t even remember meeting in person, said “oh, isn’t he the sex freak?”

I tried laughing it off because not unlike many gay men after growing up being persecuted for just existing, I’ve done my best to live an authentic, congruent, sex-positive life. Just like you said, we react with humor but it did kind of hurt, because even though I’m not ashamed of who I am and I’m proud to hold others up and praise them for embracing all aspects of themselves, it hurts when people talk shit and all we really want is to be accepted.

So thank you Benny, I hope more of us can do our best to be accepting of all our LGBTQI family and remember what it’s like to be the outsider.

—Joseph Sago, via


Thanks Benny for your insights, you are right about all the judgment that gets thrown around in the interest of having a good laugh or sounding enlightened. For those who think it is acceptable … it is not funny and you are not enlightened; you are small and shallow and it is not attractive.

And another thing, that thing I have on my face when I approach is a smile, it is designed to put you at ease and feel comfortable with another human on the planet. It does not mean that I want your body, nor does it mean that I think I might have a chance with you, and if you can’t smile back just for the sake of sharing a smile, then I want nothing more to do with you. Have a nice day.

This is Hillcrest, so get with the program and be kinder to your neighbors.

—Luke Terpstra, via


More about The Eagle

[Ref: Editorial: “#WeAllMatter: continuing the conversation about bars,” Vol. 7, Issue 4, or at]

If there is any bias I’ve seen from “patrons,” it has more to do with folks not being a part of the leather/fetish community and acting like they are visiting a zoo exhibit. I’ve personally seen all the staff, management and owner treat San Diego’s and visiting leather women with the utmost respect. Again, that’s my experience as a semi-regular at The Eagle.

—Ian Morton, via


Regarding Hillary

[Ref: “Guest editorial: Why every parent should vote for Hillary,” Vol. 7, Issue 6, or at]

Great article, I will be voting for Hillary in the fall. I cannot wait to see this country’s first woman president. woo hoo!

—Britt Silva, via


Tristan Higgins’ guest editorial, “Why Every Parent Should Vote for Hillary,” demands a response.

Her argument seems to be that we should elect “a woman president” in order that small children might be raised to embrace proper values. That’s a parent’s job, not the president’s. Should we have elected Sarah Palin, also a woman, as vice-president in 2008 as a role model for family values?

I think not. The issue is always not “a woman,” but “which woman?”

In 1964, I supported the candidacy of Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress, for the Republican presidential nomination. She was also the first woman ever nominated at a major party convention (Barry Goldwater won the nomination that year). But my choice was based on her character and experience, not her gender. She had been among the first to speak out against Joe McCarthy and was a major advocate for women in the Armed Forces.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is problematical for many reasons.

A few weeks ago a young Latina, Maria Bustillos, wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times that summed up some major flaws. For her, Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War was “a deal-breaker.” She wrote, “I can hardly believe that my party has seen fit to put a pro-Iraqi war candidate on our ticket at all,” and I “will never support a Democrat in a primary who did not speak forcibly against invading Iraq at the time.”

Clinton has since tried to walk back her vote. Yet, as Secretary of State, she pushed the Obama Administration hard for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, which President Obama has recently called the worst foreign policy decision of his presidency. Clinton is an inveterate hawk and has learned nothing from experience. She seems to think that if you just knock off a bad guy, everything will proceed happily ever after.

She is now pushing for deeper American military involvement in Syria. Do we really want another George W. Bush in the Oval Office?

Clinton has long had serious problems with secrecy and with the “reshaping” of the truth, when not obliterating it entirely. This is why poll after poll shows many people don’t trust her. This was the case as far back as the first Clinton Administration, when she was charged with creating a health plan. It was conducted with great secrecy and when she was called on it, the materials had been “lost.” After the furor was over, however, they were “discovered” in plain sight, on a table in the White House.

More to the point is a $650,000 payment for lectures at Goldman Sachs [the text of which] she refuses to release. Then there was the recent Michigan campaign, in which she repeatedly declared she was the only candidate who had voted for the auto bailout. True, but she concealed the fact that the auto bailout was later coupled with the “no accountability” bailout for her Wall Street friends, which she conveniently forgets to mention. (Bernie Sanders also supported an auto bailout, but voted against the combined bill.) A week later she was claiming in a victory speech that all of her contributors were small donors. Voila! – a second Bernie Sanders! I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, and of course, it was not believable. She said nothing about the river of Wall Street money flowing into her secretive Super PAC.

This pattern of secrecy, holdout, half-truths and spin is embedded in the Clinton DNA. (See Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton.)

Hillary and her husband are a political team (called “Billary” a few years ago).

They are a political duo, like Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Florence and Warren Harding, and Edith and Woodrow Wilson.

So electing Hillary is also giving Bill a third term in the White House. He’s already her actual campaign manager and surrogate. She has said that when she is elected he is the first person she will consult, “over the kitchen table,” on policy. (Others, more knowledgeable, only come into it later?)

This is the Bill Clinton who signed the NAFTA agreement, losing 180,000 working-class American jobs. (Once stalwarts of the Democratic Party, these folk seem now to be supporting Trump.) He signed the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial from investment banking. By doing so, he launched the unsupervised extravaganza that ultimately gave us the worst recession since the 1930s.

A nominal Democrat, he cut back subsidies for the poor. And, as every self-respecting gay person should always remember and never forgive, he both signed the Defense of Marriage Act and instituted the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which resulted in the witch hunt that destroyed the military careers of countless gay men and lesbian women honorably serving our country. What was the role of the other member of this close-knit political team in all this? She’s not saying. [Editor’s note: DADT actually ended the “witch hunts” that took place in the decades prior to its enactment, but service members continued to be discharged in large numbers.]

The latest Gallup poll found that both probable candidates, Trump and Clinton, are divisive and disliked figures — by 63 percent of the population for Trump and 53 percent for Hillary. It’s been at least 24 years since presidential candidates on both sides drew such negative views.

One of my former students is trying to get me to vote for Hillary on the “lesser of two evils” principle. My response was that being only 10 points less obnoxious than Trump is hardly a qualification for the presidency and that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

There are even a couple of points in Trump’s favor, if you believe the Republican establishment: As a candidate he’d lose so many Republican senators that the Democrats would take over the Senate, and as president he’d destroy the Republican Party. Sounds good to me!

If the Democrats nominate Clinton — the first pro-Wall Street candidate that party will have nominated since Judge Alton B. Parker in 1904 (Teddy Roosevelt defeated him) — they deserve what they will get. It will result in a lot of alienated progressive Democrats and independents, who may either skip the presidential line on their ballots or stay home.

The only way Hillary can get elected is if Trump continues to be scarier than the prospect of the two Clintons back in the White House.

It’s not a great outlook. Right now, it looks as if the Democratic Party, once on the cutting edge of American politics, seems to need a bigger remake than Volkswagen.

—William A. Koelsch, via email


THANK YOU so much for bringing me out of the darkness and into eternal enlightenment by instructing me on who I ‘SHOULD’ vote for!

Your choice of words and tone of communication on pages 6 – 7 of Volume 7, Issue 6, was so ‘well-balanced, professional and inclusive’ that I am so ever thankful for you in guiding us the lost masses out here.

Please keep up the good, biased opinions coming and tell us what we need to do next. I can’t wait. Thank you again.

—Len Feinberg, via email


Leave a Comment