What purpose did Jim Riske's letter ("LaLonde is too risky to donate blood," 12/2/96) serve? He offered ill-informed comments on what constitutes high risk for HIV and a personal attack on Ryan LaLonde. Without any informative basis, the purpose of this letter seems only to allow Riske to publicly express his homophobia to the University community.
LaLonde has proved himself to be one of the strongest leaders on campus. His hard work in making this campus more comfortable for lesbian, gay and bisexual students is admirable. In fact, it was just such an action in writing his letter regarding the discrimination in Red Cross practices that inspired Riske's ridiculous attack.
The letters to the editor section of The Michigan Daily should not be a forum for expressing personal attacks on other students on campus. If Riske wants to write a well supported discussion of his position on the blood donation policy, this would be far more appropriate for publication.
Stacey Bronoel
LSA senior
Oh, for crying out loud. Today I open up the Daily and find some moron wrote this ("LaLonde too risky to donate blood," 12/2/96) testament to idiocy, "When Ryan stops engaging in an activity that puts him at a high risk for AIDS (and who says he is) ... he will no longer pose a risk of passing those diseases into the nation's blood supply."
Well "Riske," why don't you pick your ass up and carry it back to Mars or whatever hell planet you've been living on. Do you honestly not have a clue who poses risks, and who is safe? Everyone poses a risk! And nobody is safe. If they've ever had sex.
That's a risk most of us seem to be willing to take, but not with this asinine pipe-dream of invulnerability that you seem to have. What the hell? Do you really believe you "pose no risk" to the nation's blood supply? Do you really think you "pose no risk" to your partner? I swear, when God was handing out retard sandwiches you must have had a second helping.
Andrew Lin
LSA senior
If Jim Riske thinks that barring homosexual men from donating blood will guarantee a clean blood supply, he is wrong. Apparently he is unaware that AIDS is spread through heterosexual sex in the same way that it is for homosexual sex. Ryan LaLonde is not asking to be treated as though he is better than anyone else - the Red Cross rule is not, as Riske seems to think, "stop having sex with all kinds of gay men and we'll let you donate blood." Instead, it says that if you are a man and have ever had sex with another man, you cannot donate. The reason LaLonde finds this unfair is that under this guideline, a man who has only had sex one time with anyone, and even if that was with a condom, is disqualified. The problem with that is that at the same time, a man who has sex regularly with many different women (possibly unprotected) is allowed to hop up on the table and put his pint of blood into the blood supply. Obviously, there is a flaw in the system when this can happen.
What I believe LaLonde was asking for was to have the question in the pre-donation stage read more along the lines of "do you now or have you ever had unprotected sex with anyone." That allows completely safe gay men to donate, as well as keeping unsafe heterosexual men and women from donating. No one wants our blood supply to be compromised just to allow everyone who wants to donate to do so - but why is it such a big deal to change the rules so that people who are really involved in high-risk activities are not allowed to give and those who are safe are approved? No special interests, just fairness and common sense.
Peter Wilhelm
LSA junior
I am writing in response to Jim Riske's letter ("LaLonde is too risky to donate blood," 12/2/96). Since when does the Daily print the equivalent of graffiti in the high school bathroom? Instead of a forum for insults and judgments of others' lifestyles, perhaps the letters page should concentrate on intelligent discourse.
Anthony Zaret
RC sophomore
Get your facts straight! The headline on the Dec. 2 front page read, "Israel eyes permanent spots in Jordan." This is blatantly misleading and deceiving. The state of Israel has no claim to any land whatsoever in the country of Jordan, nor is it seeking to build any such settlements there.
(Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu is pursuing settlement expansion in the Jordan Valley, a part of the West Bank that Israel occupied after being invaded in 1967. Incorrect headlines such as these add unnecessary sparks to already tense issue.
In the article, there is also a misleading statement. The assertion that Netanyahu "rejects the premise of trading occupied land for peace" is false. Regardless of your feelings about the peace process, most parties will agree that the hard line that Netanyahu is taking does not reject the basic premises of land-for-peace. Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat are working to arrange a more secure withdrawal from Hebron which will insure greater security for all parties involved, Jews and Arabs. Please be cautious in making false statements like these. They are misleading and needlessly inflammatory.
David Schultz
LSA senior
To the Daily:
I find the headline of the article that you chose to print from the Los Angeles Times reading, "Israel eyes permanent spots in Jordan," (12/2/96) to be particularly offensive. Issues as to whom the West Bank belongs aside, it is completely out of line and deceptive to refer to the West Bank, or the Jordan Valley as it was referred to in the article, as "Jordan."
Doing so blatantly exposes the author's anti-Israel sentiments and hate-colored perception of Israel.
I was disappointed to see such misleading journalism reprinted by the Daily.
David Caroline
RC sophomore