Under the new policy, those who test positive will begin ARV treatment immediately -- which is a radical shift from the decade-long strategy of waiting until the patient's CD4 count drops before a certain level. The policy is defended in two ways: First, that studies increasingly evidence that there can be significant damage done by the virus to HIV-positive people who do not begin treatment immediately. Second, that reducing viral loads in HIV-positive people will reduce rates of transmission:
A growing body of evidence indicates that HIV causes detrimental effects throughout the body long before the CD4 count falls into the "danger zone" for opportunistic infections (OIs).
The large SMART treatment interruption trial found that patients who stopped therapy when their CD4 count rose above 350 cells/mm3 -- and therefore had periods of unchecked viral replication -- not only had a higher rate of OIs and AIDS-related death, but also of non-AIDS conditions including cardiovascular, liver, and kidney disease.
Early treatment has been linked to decreased risk of morbidity and mortality even at CD4 counts above 500 cells/mm3. Many experts are convinced that chronic inflammation due to ongoing HIV replication contributes to non-AIDS conditions and what appears to be accelerated aging in people with HIV.
Another benefit of early ART is that it lowers the risk of HIV transmission, since treated HIV positive people have lower viral loads than untreated individuals, regardless of CD4 cell count. In 2008, Julio Montaner and colleagues from British Columbia presented a mathematical model showing that treating all people with HIV according to ART guidelines (which then had a CD4 count threshold of 350 cells/mm3) could dramatically reduce the rate of new infections.
At least two things worth mentioning:
1. This policy would put people on meds who may not need them until there are better, less toxic drugs available. For instance, someone diagnosed today may not have gone on them under previous guidelines for another two years. In two years, its possible that there will be ARVs available with fewer side effects.
2. Obviously, if implemented, this would eliminate the possibility of long-term non-progressors (a rare group of positive people who can live healthfully for many years before ARV therapeutic intervention is necessary). A friend of mine in SF who was infected in the mid-80s just went on ARVs for the first time. A very rare situation, indeed. But still worth mentioning.
Oy vey! What a week I had in California. The Gay Men's Health Summit was incredible (more in other posts), and my friend Justin surprised me by getting us (free) tickets to DisneyLand down in Los Angeles. This video tells it all. Pretty gaytastic!
California, rich in resources, rich in human talent, rich in industries, and very rich in the rich, can afford a first rate education system. But our quagmired political system (minority rule), anti-tax political culture, upsidedown state budget priorities, and the configuring of higher education itself on the model of a business -- these have demoted public education to the status of a failing discount store.
Indeed, there is more at stake here than the loss of a great system of education, than the madness of permitting oil wealth, real estate wealth, Silicon Valley wealth, banking wealth, Hollywood wealth, agribusiness wealth and prisons to grow ever larger while starving our schools. There is more at stake than the madness of cutting the fuel to the economic engine that generated so much innovation and capacity in California during the last century. It is also the case that there can be no democracy without an educated citizenry.
Without quality public education, we the people cannot know, handle, let alone check the powers that govern us. Without quality public education, there can be no substance to the promise of equality and freedom, no possibility of developing and realizing individual capacities, no possibility of children overcoming disadvantage, or of teens reaching for the stars, no possibility of being a people guiding their own destiny or of individuals choosing their own course. Above all, there is no possibility of being a self-governing people, a democracy:
As the world grows more complex and integrated, as the media grows ever more sophisticated and powerful in shaping events and ideas, what maintains democracy is not the technical instruction into which resource-starved schools are rapidly retreating. It is not the reduction of high school to 2 years, college to 3, not vocational training for the many, but the kind of education through which future citizens learn to understand and engage the complexities of this world.
This has got to be one of the more bizarre and twisted uses of logic by SCOTUS in recent memory. In a 5-4 partisan decision, conservative justices argued that Prop 8 supporters would likely be subject to "irreparable harm" if they were shown on closed-circuit feed:
The high court's five conservatives formed the majority. They said federal judge Vaughan Walker didn't follow court rules when he ordered proceedings broadcast by closed circuit to federal courthouses in several cities. The Supreme Court's four liberals joined a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The main issue in the case is whether a 2008 voter initiative called Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Defenders of Proposition 8 say it validly defined marriage in traditional terms by restricting marriage to people who could have children naturally. The proposition's defenders said broadcasting the proceedings could expose witnesses favoring the gay-marriage ban to harassment and ridicule. The Supreme Court majority backed that view, saying Proposition 8 supporters would likely suffer "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were shown through the closed-circuit feed.
Notably, this decision did not discuss posting the trial footage on Youtube, which is being decided upon at a lower court presently. Nevertheless, there has been a great push to frame evangelical Christian and Mormon supporters of Prop 8 and other anti-gay statutes as victims in the past five years. Their right to free speech is infringed upon by the harassment that ensues when they declare homophobic statements in the public sphere. This is actually quite interesting, because indeed LGBT supporters also have a right to free speech in criticizing them. But is that threat so great that they could suffer "irreparable harm"? That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, no?
Today is Jackson's 30th birthday! All my SF friends are off to Palm Springs to celebrate. I sadly couldn't afford to join. Boo. Have so much fun this weekend, y'all! Pour one out for me!
Those of us who were trying to develop a balanced critique of both the paralysis of the state economy and the questionable governance by UC administrators were incredulous when Yudof gave an interview to the New York Times Magazine in which he bragged about his own $800,000 salary, shamelessly displayed his anti-intellectualism, described his entry into the field of education as "an accident" and complained that he tries to speak to faculty and staff about the budget, but it is "speaking to the dead".
Suddenly, the problem was not only fiscal - "we don't have the money" - but a more profound loss of confidence in the mode of governance and the figure of authority entrusted with making the case for public education to the state and federal government during these hard times.
Faculty, staff and students are collectively outraged that the university has failed to make public and transparent what the cuts have been and will be, and by what criteria and set of priorities such cuts are made. Rage also centres on the devastation of "shared governance" - the policy that faculty must be part of any decision-making that affects the academic programmes and direction of the university. In its place, a "commission" was appointed by the administration with paltry representation by faculty. Emphatically missing are those in the arts and humanities.
Over 1200 faculty have signed on. From the website:
Under the cover of the summer months, UC administration has pushed through a program of tuition hikes, enrollment cuts, layoffs, furloughs, and increased class sizes that harms students and jeopardizes the livelihoods of the most vulnerable university employees. These decisions fundamentally compromise the mission of the University of California. They are complicit with the privatization of public education, and they have been made in a manner that flouts the principle of shared governance at the core of the UC faculty's capacity to guide the future of the University in accordance with its mission.
On September 24, in solidarity with UC staff and students, faculty throughout the University of California system will walk out in defense of public education.
Good luck out there in Berkeley. It's times like these that make me glad to be unionized in Michigan.
So I was doing my monthly Google search of myself (you know, for scientific purposes of course), when I stumbled upon this answer to a user's question on ChaCha (you text them questions, they text answers back -- its totally amazing when you're sans-iPhone):
Before you chuckle, do remember that there are precisely two Trevor Hoppe's out there. Myself, of course -- but also a basketball coach in California!!!!! I pray that the person seeking that answer was referring to him, and not me. Amazing!
Note, also, the categorization under "Celebrities." Hahahahaha. Oh ChaCha! How you bring me such narcissistic joy.
Jackson and I filmed what I can only say is a faaaaagulous installment here at the Russian River in Northern California. Very funny. Very cute. Will be up soon! Here's a screencap in the interim.
This is just plain disgusting. You may have heard of Father Geoffrey Farrow. He was a Priest in Fresno, California until he gave a sermon last year to his parishioners against Proposition 8. Back then, he said:
In directing the faithful to vote yes on proposition 8, the California Bishops are not only entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements by the church itself that homosexual is innate..
I know that these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian couples, not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well.
As he anticipated in his sermon, he was promptly suspended by his Bishop. (He wrote this open letter to his community back then on his blog.)
Now, in a turn of events that can only be termed outrageous, disgusting, revolting, and any other synonym of those stated adjectives, his Bishop is SELLING Father Farrow's desk on Ebay -- calling it the "historic Prop. 8 desk of Father Geoff Farrow." STFU! No really, SHUT THE FUCK UP! I've never been so disgusted in my gay life. It's so offensive. So low. So deeply offensive and hurtful. Shame on the Archbishop of Fresno.
A spirited defense of gay anger from San Francisco's National Sexuality Resource Center's Christopher White. Here's a taste:
As we all know, there was a brutal campaign to support Proposition 8 in California over the past year. We had to sit and watch as advertisement after advertisement scared voters by telling them that their children would have to be taught about us in their schools and that churches would lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against us. And we had to defend ourselves by saying that wasn't true and that those were just lies and scare tactics. (Instead of saying "HELL, YES!" you have to teach about us and our struggles in schools and that churches need to pay taxes if they are promoting discrimination and/or engaging in political activism.) We even had to watch our own anti-Prop 8 campaigns make statements about how it was okay to not think that same-sex marriage was okay but "you don't want to take away anyone's rights, right?" Fuck you.
This hurts us. It slashes into our souls and makes us hemorrhage. We are left wounded, defeated, and sometimes feel like lying down to die. Straight people - I ask you to think about what it must feel like to have your life, your very existence discussed and debated in an open forum. Forget about the negative, hateful rhetoric for a second. Just think about strangers talking about your life and debating your rights on television. Think about the public being allowed to vote on how you live or what rights you have. This alone is enough to make you feel as though you weren't as good as everyone else. Now add the vitriol and hate - sulfuric acid thrown into an open wound. Think about being told that you are worthless, sick, disgusting, horrible, sinful, nasty, and not even worthy of living. Now think of this happening every single day of your life. You might start to feel just a little angry.
When I hear stories of black transgender women being murdered and the media failing to pick up the story and the white leaders of the LGBT movement failing to speak out against this horrible crime, I feel sick and angry. When I hear stories of a lesbian dying alone in a hospital room with her partner of twenty years and biological children being denied the right to be by her side, I feel sick and angry. When I read a story about a child killing himself because he was ridiculed as suspect of being gay, I cry, and I feel sick and angry.
I get asked why I'm so angry. Now, you know. Please don't ask me to stop screaming and yelling when I hear someone call someone (usually me) faggot or dyke. I know it's not always safe to speak out, but I have to do so. Please understand that if I get pissed because my queer space is invaded by straight people it's because I need, we need sanctuary. And please, please, please don't just give lip service to gay rights and don't just show up at a march. I need for you to get pissed off. We need for you to get pissed off. When you see me start acting crazy and ready to riot, don't tell me to calm down. Pick up a stick. Start screaming like an insane person. And let's scare the hell out of them.
Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.
The pattern is as old as fear itself. Remember, only rarely does true progress appear as a single, momentous, Obama-like shift that reverberates across the planet and changes everything in an instant. Most frequently it comes in fits and starts and hiccups, small lurches and hard-fought battles shot through with little spitballs of hate and intolerance and heaps of misunderstanding. You know, just like now.
Evidence? Plenty. Just look at the numbers: Support for gay marriage is now the highest it's been in American history, somewhere between 42 and 48 percent nationwide. Just a few decades ago, support was down in the 20s. It's been rising steadily ever since, never once regressing.
Or, flip that data around. According to FiveThirtyEight, marriage bans like California's are losing support at a rate of about two percent a year. According to that model, more than half of U.S. states will vote against bans like the contemptible Prop 8 as soon as 2012, if not sooner. By 2024, even miserably homophobic joints like Alabama and Mississippi will be flying the rainbow flag.
Let's see that it all goes down that way. Hat tip to tyleraadams in the comments!
Via Joe.My.God, protests have begun in Los Angeles apparently including arrests. Twitter member 1Struggle1Fight is live-tweeting the demonstration. Protesters in San Francisco are blocking Van Ness Avenue, a major thoroughfare, and police are about to begin arrests. The Governator is urging calm. Here's footage:
You can find the full court ruling AFTER the jump, but here's the gist:
We conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit. Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5.
Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state.
I can't say that I was surprised by today's ruling - though obviously outraged. It falls in line with the failed government that exists today in California which puts up for popular vote all sorts of irresponsible and unnecessary measures. This is just further evidence that California desperately needs to overhaul their democratic process, the kind of reform without which will force the state to continue spiraling into crisis.
The California Supreme Court will decide tomorrow whether or not to uphold the constitutionality of the voter referendum ("Prop 8") passed last year that made same-sex marriage illegal. Tomorrow there will be rallies nationwide (and a few in Canada!) to celebrate or protest that decision. For more information and to find your city's event, click on this link here!
Here's the 411 on 2009's installation of what has become an institution in queer studies in the US, the UCLA Queer Studies Conference:
LOS ANGELES QUEER STUDIES CONFERENCE 2009
Friday and Saturday, October 9-10, 2009
Royce Hall, UCLA
PLENARY SPEAKERS
Paul E. Amar
Noa Ben-Asher
Lee Edelman
Martin Manalansan
Hoang Tan Nguyen
Elizabeth A. Povinelli
Omise'eke N. Tinsley
Deborah R. Vargas
Sara Warner
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Los Angeles Queer Studies Conference welcomes presentations of research and other work in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender studies, on queer topics, sexuality and gender. Since one of the principal goals of the conference is to encourage the exchange of ideas across academic generations, we invite participation of both graduate students and faculty scholars.
Please send your proposal (not more than 750 words) for a 20-minute presentation and a cv (not more than 1 page) to one of the addresses below. Only one proposal per person. We will not consider proposals, or read cvs, that exceed the specified length.
If you would like to organize a panel of three speakers, please feel free to do so. Panel submissions must include not only the proposals and cvs of each of the participants but also a brief statement presenting the panel as a whole. Those who submit proposals as part of a panel should indicate whether, if the whole panel is not accepted, we should consider their proposals individually for possible acceptance.
DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: June 22, 2009
Submissions by US Postal Service:
UCLA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Program
3300 Rolfe Hall
Box 951531
Los Angeles, California 90095-1531
Email submissions: lgbs@humnet.ucla.edu
For further information, please contact the LGBTS office at 310 206 0516 or lgbs@humnet.ucla.edu
Several weeks ago I reported on the California-based "Center for AIDS Prevention" fraudulently seeking donations via ads on The New York Times' website. To catch you up to speed: Nobody's heard of the organization; there's no evidence they provide any services; and they appear to be affiliated with a now-defunct company that advertised an herbal remedy for HIV. ProPublica helped break the story last month, and followed up by noting that they were advertising on USA Today's website as well.
Well color me surprised earlier this week when I answered my phone only to be greeted by an alleged representative of this organization -- "D Lomax Burnett" -- complaining that my use of their "property" in the form of their logo in my last post constituted theft and that they would be filing lawsuit against me in four days unless I took down the material.
He followed up with this e-mail later that day, which included a screenshot of that lost post:
Dear Mr. Hoppe,
I placed a call to you earlier today and asked that you remove the images you created using our logo from your website and/or blog. Our logo is not your property and you have not been give permission to use it or any of our other intellectual property. We ask that you cease and desist from your use of our property. Our legal team is aware of this matter and we are asking that you comply with our request immediately.
Sincerely,
D. Lomax Burnett
Director of Fundraising and Outreach
If this isn't further evidence of their shady dealings and the need to fight to see this organization's further investigation, I don't know what is.
Yesterday I blogged about Andrew Sullivan's critique of the Human Rights Campaign. Today, Markos (founder of DailyKos) extends Sullivan's critique to talk about the poorly managed "No on Prop 8" campaign in general. He notes that traditional "gatekeepers" of activism will self-destruct in an era of decentralized, grassroots Web 2.0 activism (extending his concept of "Netroots"):
"As a gatekeeper, the Human Rights Campaign sucks. Sullivan calls for the organization to be abandoned and defunded. But something worse is happening -- it is being rendered irrelevant by current events, and with irrelevance, it will shrivel up and die on its own.
He goes on, though, to divert attention away from HRC and refocus it more largely on the "No on 8" campaign in general, and its inability to spark the kind of grassroots mobilization seen in the wake of the amendment's passing. He urges caution, though, in noting that we need more than just the "street protest" as our method of activism:
The anti-Prop 8 campaign was an exercise in frustration. What we're seeing now, straight out of Taking on the System, is brilliant. And the movement is spreading far beyond California's borders.
These nationwide protests are a watershed moment of sorts -- the moment when the gay community realized that it had the power to fight for change on its own, and didn't require any of it's so-called, self-appointed "leaders" to give them permission to engage. This isn't the first time a community has made that realization (and TOS is full of such examples), but it never fails to inspire me.
But what about the tactics -- the use of street protests themselves? It's no secret that I have a general disdain for the street act, but in my book, I don't call for their elimination -- I say they must be "reinvented". And indeed, the chapter "Reinvent the Street Protest" is full of great examples of .... street protests. I focus on the Jenna 6 protests, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and the pro-immigration protests of a few years ago. The key to an effective protest effort is to have a clear message (no "free Mumia" bullshit), clear, achievable goal, and to make that protest effort part of a broader multimedia campaign. The protest can't be the goal in and of itself, rather, it's a tool in a broader toolbox.
In this case, these protests have served as a wakeup call to equality-minded people all over the country. It is an empowering act. But rather than people feeling they've done their part by marching for a few hours, I'm willing to bet that, just like here in California, the seeds were planted for further organizing all over the country. There is nothing more dangerous for the status quo (the "system") than people suddenly feeling empowered.
Markos is certainly on the cutting edge of using Web 2.0 tactics in organizing political campaigns. The challenge now will be to harness the energy built by the "Join the Impact" protests into a more focused political strategy. How to do this in the wake of clear, centralized message-builders? That's I guess the challenge for the coming months.
The media has just been eating up Dan Savage! There was this prominent appearance on Stephen Colbert's show, The Colbert Report. Curious here, he seems to have switched around his position form his much-maligned commentary blaming the 70% of African-Americans who voted for Prop 8 in California (a claim that statistician Nate Silver and others have shown to be inaccurate and misleading). But on his appearance on The Daily Show, he concedes that this is misleading, and also thanks Colbert for pointing out he fact that there are black gay men (who are obscured in the Black vs. Gay analysis). He also here is refocusing his attack on the Mormon Church, an attack he will continue in the next video. Have a watch:
That was one week ago. Now, something interesting happens today when he was on Anderson Cooper, sparring with the homophobic Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. Watch how Perkins baits Savage to try to get him to condemn Black voters. Perkins is furious that protests are happening at Mormon temples across the country, an outcome of the Church overwhelmingly financing the Yes-on-8 campaign in California. Perkins is well aware that public sympathy for Mormons is low (they're portrayed often as polygamist misogynists, rightly or wrongly), and thus protests against them are seen as legitimate. Protests against Black churches, however, would not be as politically palatable. I think Dan realized this in the hours after the massive backlash began after he penned that editorial criticizing Black voters. Watch it all happen on CNN:
Jasmyne Cannick, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, describes why she didn't encourage African-Americans to vote against Proposition 8 while canvassing in California:
Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
[snip]
Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.
[snip]
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration? And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.
I want to sympathize with Jasmyne's clear and present anger. Because I *get* where this anger and frustration is coming from -- real, deep-seated racial injustice that exists and is perpetuated by American institutions like the criminal justice system. I get it. She is called to a different work.
But what she's doing here is first and foremost counter-productive -- and secondly inaccurate. She's building two constructions: first, that all Black people are poor, living in the projects, and dealing with gangs. And second, that "white gays" are wealthy and able to "afford" to focus on such a "luxury" like marriage. So on the one hand, we have the totally oppressed, violated, and victimized minority group: Blacks, generally. And on the other, we have the privileged, wealthy minority group: white gays.
I have news for you, Jasmyne: it ain't that simple. This is identity politics at its lowest point. It's what Loretta Ross of SisterSong calls "Oppression Olympics." Jasmyne here is trying to measure inequalities, and in her book, racism comes out the "winner" of this battle.The message is clear: "Homophobia? Please! That's something for rich people to worry about!" We've heard this before. She's basically arguing that white gays have it so easy, they have time to worry about marriage. This isn't productive. It isn't accurate. And it's mean-spirited.
This kind of bickering over who's got it worse paralyzed feminist movements for decades (and is continuing to do so today). It makes enemies of our brothers and sisters. It focuses the debate not on the real problems we're facing (which include racism AND homophobia), but instead on the futile exercise of measuring our injustice against another's.
Nobody wins in this effort. Well, nobody except social conservatives. They're laughing all the way to the alter.
About Us Trevorade is a community of people just like you who spend their days thinking about sex, gay men's health, and HIV/AIDS. Welcome!
We Need Your Support We're supported almost exclusively by donations from generous souls like yourself. So please, if you enjoy the content here, shell out a few gay dollars to help us cover our hosting bills.
Pam's House Blend
She's a fabulous North Carolinian blogging about politics, LGBT and women's rights, the influence of the far Right, and race relations. What more can I say?
